This 25-inch E Ink monitor is easy on the eyes

midian182

Posts: 7,166   +65
Staff member
In brief: If you’re one of the many people whose job involves staring at a monitor for eight hours or more every day, you might wish for something easier on the eyes. E Ink displays have long been used in eBooks such as Kindles, so why not monitors? Chinese company Dasung has been making them for years and just introduced its largest model yet: the 25.3-inch Dasung Paperlike 253.

With no blue light, flashing, or backlight, Dasung targets its E Ink displays at those who experience eye problems when using a computer, kids and teens whose eyes are developing, elderly people suffering from dry and tired eyes, and office workers.

Dasung already makes a 7.8-inch E Ink Android tablet called ‘Not-eReader 103,’ a name that denotes its use beyond reading eBooks—users can browse the web and install YouTube, Facebook, and other apps. The company also produces a 13.3-inch E Ink monitor that plugs into a computer via USB to mirror or extend its screen.

The Paperlike 253 monitor comes in at a respectable 25.3 inches, bringing it closer to a standard monitor’s dimensions while featuring an impressive 3200 x 1800 resolution. As with other E Ink displays, it reflects ambient light.

The downside is that it’s only able to show 16 shades of grey and the refresh rate is as low as you’d expect, meaning videos look a bit stuttery, and you're not going to want to play Doom Eternal on it.

But Dasung’s monitor isn’t for gaming and videos. As noted by Liliputing, someone who is only reading and typing, such as a coder, could appreciate the Paperlike 253’s qualities. No word yet on price, but with the 13.3-inch version costing $999, expect this to be expensive when it goes on sale sometime in 2021.

Permalink to story.

 

MarkHughes

Posts: 280   +238
>13.3-inch version costing $999

About 4:00 minutes in they play a video then show some productivity, Looks like it might be ok for coding... However I feel the price might be a bit much for me to consider it for that task tbh.
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,334   +1,219
...annd the refresh rate is as low as you’d expect.
Considering that some e-ink displays have refresh times measured in seconds, not ms, this monitor actually appears to be far faster than expected. The article doesn't give a refresh time, but from the video playback, it appears to be in the 100ms range. And of course, the pixel resolution is much higher than a standard monitor. I'm sure the company will have no trouble selling these.
 

Uncle Al

Posts: 8,247   +7,016
Yeah, this price is WAY out of line for a simple monochrome monitor .... in fact I wouldn't give a quarter of that price for such a small monitor. They are obviously playing on the novelty of the moment .....
 

bazz2004

Posts: 1,790   +296
I bought a Boyue Alita Android e-reader last year and it was expensive. It's supposed to do all sorts of useful stuff like taking notes with a stylus, surfing the internet, watching video and running Google apps. It has been a real disappointment and I use it just as an e-reader. At the sort of prices being charged you'd think you were getting something special but don't count on that. e-ink technology is useful for e-readers but probably not for anything displaying video. Perhaps I'll be proved wrong but better not to splash the cash unless you can buy from an internet seller like Amazon and get a refund easily.
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 1,717   +1,322
I would actually love this. I’m currently going through all different types of VDU glasses as where I’m working from home I work all day then close the laptop and change the source on my monitor to my PC and play games on the same curved vibrant VA panel.

It’s massively overpriced but I’m sure the large corporation I work for can afford it. They do pay for covid testing us 3 times a week after all!
 

Plutoisaplanet

Posts: 542   +826
Considering that some e-ink displays have refresh times measured in seconds, not ms, this monitor actually appears to be far faster than expected. The article doesn't give a refresh time, but from the video playback, it appears to be in the 100ms range. And of course, the pixel resolution is much higher than a standard monitor. I'm sure the company will have no trouble selling these.
I'd say it's even better than that. I'm used to playing games on a laptop, so I can roughly tell the difference between 10fps, 20fps, and 30fps. I'd say that's more like 20-25 Hz/fps, or 40-50ms response time. If the price of this ever comes down to $300 or so, I'd probably opt for this over a regular monitor.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 17,411   +6,144
You know, all the hoopla about "reduced blue light", and, "flicker free", is pure billsh!t.

First of all, monitors are calibrated to a 6300 K color temperature standard. All you have to do is drop the color temperature to 5600 K, and you should be all set. Or, dial the blue slider on the monitor controls down a bit. This accomplishes the same damned thing.

As for "flicker free", you can't see flicker at a 60 Hz refresh. "persistence of vision", takes care of that. Look it up.

Here, I'll do it for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_of_vision
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,334   +1,219
You know, all the hoopla about "flicker free", is pure billsh!t ... you can't see flicker at a 60 Hz refresh. "persistence of vision", takes care of that. Look it up.
Again, sir, you are incorrect. This is the Wikipedia article you actually require:

Flicker fusion threshold - Wikipedia

Quoting: "The flicker fusion threshold is proportional to the amount of modulation... The flicker fusion threshold does not prevent indirect detection of a high frame rate [as] human-visible side effects of a finite frame rate were still seen on an experimental 480 Hz display.... LED lamps generally do not benefit from flicker attenuation through phosphor persistence, the notable exception being white LEDs. Flicker at frequencies as high as 2000 Hz (2 kHz) can be perceived by humans during saccades[19] and frequencies above 3000 Hz (3 kHz) have been recommended to avoid human biological effects..."
 

captaincranky

Posts: 17,411   +6,144
Again, sir, you are incorrect. This is the Wikipedia article you actually require:

Flicker fusion threshold - Wikipedia

Quoting: "The flicker fusion threshold is proportional to the amount of modulation... The flicker fusion threshold does not prevent indirect detection of a high frame rate [as] human-visible side effects of a finite frame rate were still seen on an experimental 480 Hz display.... LED lamps generally do not benefit from flicker attenuation through phosphor persistence, the notable exception being white LEDs. Flicker at frequencies as high as 2000 Hz (2 kHz) can be perceived by humans during saccades[19] and frequencies above 3000 Hz (3 kHz) have been recommended to avoid human biological effects..."
Gee, then we should go back to CCFL backlights.
 

bviktor

Posts: 497   +827
Yeah, this price is WAY out of line for a simple monochrome monitor .... in fact I wouldn't give a quarter of that price for such a small monitor. They are obviously playing on the novelty of the moment .....
Because you don't understand what e-ink is for.
 

bazz2004

Posts: 1,790   +296
Pretty well everybody understands what e-ink is for. It's just that apart from an e-reader the present tech is not useful. What's lacking is the ability to integrate easy to use note taking apps and the capacity to stream video. That looks to require a complete new technology. If it was do-able with e-ink the devices would be around now. True there are expensive devices claiming to do all that but splash the cash at your peril.