Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Displays

Flexible Electronic Paper 253

Posted by CmdrTaco from the roll-up-your-laptop-and-put-it-in-your-pocket dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Flexible Electronic Paper More

Flexible Electronic Paper

Comments Filter:

  • Make mine writable.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bigattichouse ( 527527 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @10:40AM (#13826492) Homepage
    Make it pressure sensitive for interfacing (writing with a stylus and touch screen), and you got a deal mister!

    • Re:Make mine writable.. (Score:5, Funny)

      by halivar ( 535827 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `reglefb'> on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @10:46AM (#13826553)
      No, what you've got is a really, really expensive pencil and paper. All you save is eraser rubbings.

      • Re:Make mine writable.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by KillerDeathRobot ( 818062 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @10:58AM (#13826667) Homepage
        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.
      • 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

    • 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.

  • FAX resolution (Score:2, Informative)

    by acariquara ( 753971 )
    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 (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @10:47AM (#13826564)
      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.
      • Sure, everybody reads books and newspapers in a computer screen. Ever heard of eye strain or Computer Vision Syndrome [bausch.com]?

        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.
        • 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 (Score:2, Informative)

      by MaceyHW ( 832021 )
      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.
    • 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 (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Red Flayer ( 890720 )
      " 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 (Score:3, Interesting)

        by acariquara ( 753971 )
        "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 (Score:3, Informative)

          by Red Flayer ( 890720 )
          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 (Score:3, Informative)

      by ucblockhead ( 63650 )
      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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dsginter ( 104154 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:07AM (#13826751)
      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 [queensu.ca] at 100dpi.
    • 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

  • A repeat? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by harish ( 4540 )
    I thought this was already posted?

    Harish
    • I belive so too. I belive they also have a Gumstix module for that too.
    • 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.
    • That would be this story. [slashdot.org] 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.

  • what's the vapor-equivalent of hardware? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by The Only Druid ( 587299 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @10:41AM (#13826501)
    (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.

  • So where are they? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by EraserMouseMan ( 847479 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @10:41AM (#13826506)
    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!

  • First graders (Score:4, Funny)

    by connah0047 ( 850585 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @10:42AM (#13826508)
    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?!"

  • Sounds good.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GreyWolf3000 ( 468618 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @10:42AM (#13826509) Journal

    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'

    • ...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 (Score:5, Funny)

    by Hey Pope Felcher . . ( 921019 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @10:42AM (#13826513)
    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.

  • the future of aviation (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @10:43AM (#13826527)
    High tech paper airplanes, here we come!

  • Not sure how feasible this is (Score:5, Funny)

    by casualsax3 ( 875131 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @10:44AM (#13826534)
    It sounds nice on paper though.

  • 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!"

  • Is it TRUELY? (Score:2, Funny)

    by rock217 ( 802738 )
    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 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @10:47AM (#13826562) Homepage
    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.

  • 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.
    • Dev kits for the 6" display can be pre ordered [eink.com] 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.

  • FYI (Score:5, Informative)

    by Gruneun ( 261463 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @10:49AM (#13826581)
    You can order a prototype kit, including Linux on a Gumstix, through the E-Ink website [eink.com]. 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.
  • Anything related to white-out on e-paper instead of on the computer screen
  • 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... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mahdi13 ( 660205 ) <icarus.lnx@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @10:52AM (#13826608) Journal
    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...
  • 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.

  • 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!

  • 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 revol
    • 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?

      • Re:eCyclable (Score:3, Insightful)

        by arkanes ( 521690 )
        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

      • Re:eCyclable (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @12:05PM (#13827248) Homepage Journal
        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 (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Irish_Samurai ( 224931 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @04:23PM (#13830076)
        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. [mindfully.org] 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.
  • 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
    • 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,
  • 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.

  • Press releases (Score:5, Informative)

    by Peregr1n ( 904456 ) <ian.a.ferguson@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:09AM (#13826762) Homepage
    The only new thing about today's press release [eink.com] is that it's bigger than before and higher resolution. But yesterday they announced a colour version [eink.com], which is a bit more newsworthy.

  • Oooh! 300 MIcrons (Score:4, Insightful)

    by blair1q ( 305137 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:09AM (#13826764) Journal
    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?
    • 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.
  • The technology has absolutely nothing to do with LCDs beyond being intended for similar applications.
  • I don't trust any article on slashdot with the words, "truely (truly) changing the way we..."

  • Dose of salt (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bozovision ( 107228 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:15AM (#13826819) Homepage
    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 [e-ink.com]. The press release about the colour display is here [e-ink.com] and the release about the paper, upon which the original post is based is here [e-ink.com].

  • Truely. (Score:5, Funny)

    by HunterZ ( 20035 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:26AM (#13826916) Journal
    "...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.
  • 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.
  • One of the simplest words to spell, and it *still* gets past the editors.

    *sigh*
  • 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*

  • They HAVE shipping product in Japan (Score:3, Interesting)

    by JudasBlue ( 409332 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @01:37PM (#13828343)


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

    E Ink's PR on it [eink.com]
    Review of unit [dottocomu.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Close