I've been reading on an X3 (small eink display driven by esp32), and although I don't need better display performance, it would be cool! I wonder how long until these sort of driver improvements for e-ink filter down to other devices.
This is insane. Almost everything done here to make things fast were things that I had assummed that e-ink displays aready did, because they are so slow, I figured their behaviour was the best that could be achieved after trying all these kind of tricks.
It makes me what other things could be much better if they received some attention from someone who cares about it.
For the grayscale, I'm guessing each physical display would need to be individually calibrated? I also wonder whether the calibration is sensitive to environmental factors, i.e. gets out of whack if the display is too hot or too cold.
It would be interesting if the driver could sense whether the pixel had fully transitioned or not, allowing it to measure transition time and accurately generate greys.
I don’t know if this particular display is magnetic particles or not, but epaper is not synonymous with eink. Something can be called epaper and still be lcd based. So I feel the video is misleading by declaring epaper is particle based.
> if everyone understands ... then what's the problem
"E-paper" means very little. It may mean "static" (and yet not necessarily "bistable", not even necessarily "efficient"), it may mean "reflective"... It is a marketing term.
So no, there is no real "agreed understanding" in it.
Technically true, but I'm pretty sure the great majority of "e-paper" displays are in practice electrophoretic displays, most of which are made by the company E Ink.
Some 15 to 20 years ago there were a lot of other companies trying to create reflective (= e-paper) screen technology based on principles other than electrophoresis, some with native color or fast pixel response times, but they all closed shop.
The only other major type of e-paper that is still used is simple reflective greyscale LCDs. These are not bi-stable but achieve fast pixel response times. The main disadvantage is that they have significantly worse reflectivity, resulting in rather greyish whites.
I know e-ink has a whole lot of limitations, which is what makes this video impressive, but, what were the limitations on the hardware used in the original gameboy screens that prevented them from remaining popular? Wikipedia says that they were STN LCD.
Transflective LCDs are used nowadays (as opposed to just reflective), my Pebble has one and the Daylight Computer is another modern device with one.
They're great if monochrome IMO, but the color variants suffer with brightness as each subpixel can only reflect 1/3 of the light, which makes the backlight necessary in more situations.
The original Game Boy and the Game Boy Pocket had very poor pixel response times, resulting in heavy ghosting, perhaps not much different from the ghosting achieved in the video. Later, LCDs fixed the ghosting, but LCDs never achieved the reflectivity of electrophoresis-based e-paper screens. Reflective LCDs are always more grey than white.
LCDs are inherently transmissive rather than reflective (like the electrophoresis-based screens from E Ink) or emissive (like CRTs or OLED screens). To make them reflective, the ambient light has to go through the liquid crystals and a polarization filter twice, since it is only reflected by a mirror surface behind the screen.
Unfortunately they are not strongly transmissive, so they absorb a lot of light, especially when it has to pass through twice. This is not a problem for LCDs with emissive LED backlights, because the light has to pass through only once, and LEDs are highly power efficient anyway, so you can just make them brighter. But you can't simply dial up the ambient light on reflective screens.
But that's not what's happening here. If anything, it's driving the e-ink display less. The main risk is that grays are not well-defined. Given a pulse train to get a certain gray level, that gray level might change over time due to aging of the e-ink panel, or it might change directly with temperature or other environmental factors.
Another issue I heard, but I don't know enough about the physics of e-ink to know if this is correct, is that if you are at a gray level, the white and black particles are mixed and might exchange charge, thereby causing some particles to not move correctly anymore.
Perhaps a stupid question, But I always thought the whole point of e-ink displays was to have non-volatile display, that is, a mostly static display that persists when the power is out. These projects that focus on driving them at high speed, Is there any actual advantage in using e-ink tech at that point?
It's a niche use, but if backlit screens trigger migraines (as they do for mine), then high-speed e-ink is almost a pre-requisite for using traditional interactive UI. At ~15fps typing is OK but using a mouse cursor sucks. Outdoor use is a bonus. RLCD is another option.
Is also "reflective" (natural) vs "emitting" (a compromise idea that worked but should not have you take it for granted - we do not "read fire" in nature).
Great stuff.
It makes me what other things could be much better if they received some attention from someone who cares about it.
For the grayscale, I'm guessing each physical display would need to be individually calibrated? I also wonder whether the calibration is sensitive to environmental factors, i.e. gets out of whack if the display is too hot or too cold.
There has to be a reason the e-ink industry hasn't done this yet...
Is one a subset of the other? If so which is the superset?
E-paper is an informal category that anyone can use for any display type.
The display in this video/article is also electrophoretic, but not all displays called e-paper are and it’s aggravating. An example: https://kentdisplays.com/products/color-epaper-displays/
"E-paper" means very little. It may mean "static" (and yet not necessarily "bistable", not even necessarily "efficient"), it may mean "reflective"... It is a marketing term.
So no, there is no real "agreed understanding" in it.
Some 15 to 20 years ago there were a lot of other companies trying to create reflective (= e-paper) screen technology based on principles other than electrophoresis, some with native color or fast pixel response times, but they all closed shop.
The only other major type of e-paper that is still used is simple reflective greyscale LCDs. These are not bi-stable but achieve fast pixel response times. The main disadvantage is that they have significantly worse reflectivity, resulting in rather greyish whites.
They're great if monochrome IMO, but the color variants suffer with brightness as each subpixel can only reflect 1/3 of the light, which makes the backlight necessary in more situations.
LCDs are inherently transmissive rather than reflective (like the electrophoresis-based screens from E Ink) or emissive (like CRTs or OLED screens). To make them reflective, the ambient light has to go through the liquid crystals and a polarization filter twice, since it is only reflected by a mirror surface behind the screen.
Unfortunately they are not strongly transmissive, so they absorb a lot of light, especially when it has to pass through twice. This is not a problem for LCDs with emissive LED backlights, because the light has to pass through only once, and LEDs are highly power efficient anyway, so you can just make them brighter. But you can't simply dial up the ambient light on reflective screens.
Another issue I heard, but I don't know enough about the physics of e-ink to know if this is correct, is that if you are at a gray level, the white and black particles are mixed and might exchange charge, thereby causing some particles to not move correctly anymore.
Reading a book on e-paper in daylight is so much nicer than on a phone, for example.
Is also "reflective" (natural) vs "emitting" (a compromise idea that worked but should not have you take it for granted - we do not "read fire" in nature).