Talk:Electronic paper

message: I know how black and white e-ink display work using millions of tiny microcapsules each have positively charged white particles and negatively charged black particles or what ever. but how color e-ink display works?
 state:
"This electronic paper color prototype achieves 12-bit color in a 400x300 pixel format with resolution of 83 pixels per inch, using a custom color filter from strategic partner Toppan. The color filter design has a high-brightness layout (RGBW) that preserves the paper-like whiteness of the background page while enabling deep blacks for text and a range of colors and tones for images. A smart algorithm uses color sub-pixels to smooth black and white text, for enhanced legibility equivalent to a printer. The display diagonal is 6 inches, similar to a paperback book in size. "
but how this "RGBW" filter work? can some one explain this one to me. any ideas. and why color e-ink is not in the page.
:The "filter" is actually an array of red, green, blue and clear color filters (see color filter arrays). By laying this on top of an existing black and white display, each pixel becomes a "sub-pixel" dedicated to just one of the forementioned colors. Since these sub-pixels are so close together, light reflected off of nearby ones would blend together in the eye. This allows for a whole range of colors to be reproduced. This is my whole understanding anyways --AWriterWandering (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: How color e-ink displays work

message: This is cool. The only way it could be any better would be if the paper could go clear. CrossEyed7 18:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And if it were more commonly available.  I'd love a laptop or pocket computer with a display like this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.101.233 (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow 

message: Since e ink products from both Sony and Irex are listed Jinke's readers probably should as well.  As far as I know these are the only three companies making e ink based readers at this time.  Links for Jinke are listed below:
 HomePage
 V8 Reader (shipping now)
 V2 Reader (not yet available)
:As long as the links direct the reader to a page with information on the technology (history, how it works, etc), then I don't see why not.  -- Run!  09:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jinke's Reader 

message: It would be nice if the article could have a picture of a prototype or something instead of just the diagram. I haven't looked around yet but there must be something. - raptor 04:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there are lots of pics on the net but i'm not sure what licence they are, see here. Hamish (Talk) 12:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've put one on now :) Hamish (Talk) 12:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: I read in a magazine that the power consumption needed to change the image on the screen is so tiny that the power from an RFID chip is enough, I imagine that this would mean that in the future credit cards etc could hold up-to-date information on the card surface. Any chance we could include something about this in the article?
Hamish (Talk) 12:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power Consumption 

message: The references seem to be messed up in this article. Footnote 1 doesn't have any text (only "backlinks") and 5 of the refs aren't associated with any statements in the article. Someone familiar with the sources should fix this. - dcljr (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References need fixing 

message: The applications section was prety cluttered and it looked like a few of the products mentioned, specifically the iLiad, was trying to advertise itself here. I reorganized the data in a bulleted list format and removed product data that wasn't related to electronic paper.
--Tamsco 13:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I initially undid all those changes since it made the E Ink advertising-sounding stuff more prominent, but after reviewing it closer you're right that putting it in a list reduces the marketing-speak of the text. I reverted myself and then did some minor copyediting on the list. The leading paragraph about E Ink and Fujitsu needs some attention still, but that can wait. Thanks for tackling that! — Saxifrage ✎ 17:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Organzing Applications and Removing Advertising

message: A quick search revealed the following patents:
* 5866284
* 6045955
--Dispenser 09:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are these the right patents? 

message: can't the technology used in monitors,pdas & cell phones to make them cheaper? 
can touch screen|multi touch -technologies be associated with this?
:It could and in fact is being used in certain cellphone and PDA-like devices. The major limitation with most electronic paper technologies right now though is that their refresh rates aren't nearly fast enough for multimedia, which is a popular application for all three of the forementioned electronics. 66.82.9.99 (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  e paper's application 

message: I just did a re-work of the applications section, it was a giant mess somewhere between an essay and a spam page.  I'm still unhappy with the number of external links on the page to specific products, what do regular contributors think?  WLU 01:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applications 

message: Hi. I started an article entitled “Wafer-Thin Color Displays”. The idea was to document TV-like wafer thin displays. I have since realised I am basically talking about a specialisation of Electronic paper. However, when talking about wafer-thin TV-like displays, I believe “electronic paper” is somewhat misleading. Should I continue with the article? Or should it be renamed/redirected? Steve
:If there is enough material to create an entire page, then a separate page is workable.  If it could easily be merged into this article in an existing or newly created section, you'd be better off putting it here. As part of an established article, it'd get more traffic and attention, not to mention more wikilinks in other pages.  See how far you can expand it, and if you find by the time you've exhausted all sources and information it's still a stub, think about redirecting and merging.  From my quick look through, I'd say they look pretty different (though I'm a noob to the tech so am far from an expert).  Electronic paper is meant to be a paper substitute, but WTCDs are meant to be monitor-type displays, which seems enough of a distinction to have separate articles.  Also, if industry/sources separates them, it is WP:OR to say they are the same thing.  I'm going to be doing some work on the page by the way.  WLU 12:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wafer-Thin Color Displays / Electronic paper display

message: The section "Ink-less Printing" seems unrelated to me. Simply put, electronic paper is a critical component of a refreshable electronic display, while Ink-less Printing is heat-based and is just used for laying down a single-use pattern. I see little reason for the comparison, and wish to cull it from the electronic paper article. Austin Spafford 02:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ink-less Printing, Unrelated? 

message: Unless I'm missing something, the Electrophoretic section describes almost the same process three times with varying levels of quality.  Can we get rid of two of the descriptions of how this works and generally clean it up? N Vale (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electrophoretic section 

message: Also, can we clean up this page?  There are a number of sections (i.e. the section titled `Wow' and the untitled section by Chaplain Winston Tobias Muldrew) that have only comments about how exciting electronic paper is without any relevance to the article. N Vale (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion page is messy 

message: I have only a single device (an iRex iLiad, whose Wikipedia page says it uses E Ink), but one of the most notable things about the display for me is the poor contrast, certainly worse than a year-old newspaper on my desk, and for that matter worse than a 220-year old book on my desk.
I've accordingly weakened the previous claim of “similar contrast ratio to newspaper”.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjrm (talk • contribs) 05:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A [article] claims that the upcoming successor to the iLiad (iRex Digitial Reader 1000 & 1000S) has “slightly brighter whites and darker blacks than the last generation of E-Ink devices” (presumably including the iLiad).  Pjrm (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contrast ratio 

message: The links for the "New Scientist" articles in the further reading section are all outdated. The articles still exist, but it seems like you need a subscription to the website to view them. The links should therefore be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.21.79.105 (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Reading New Scientist Links 404 

message: The applications section contained this line: "The ideal electronic paper product is a digital book that can typeset itself and could be read as if it were made of regular paper, yet programmed to download and display the text from any book.  Another possible use is in the distribution of an electronic version of a daily paper." Which is obviously original research, unverifiable, biased, and any number of other ways unencyclopedic. I took the liberty of removing it. --24.168.240.243 (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Applications

message: ===Electrophoretic===
Sixth paragraph.
:"Other than E-Ink's 0.04mm-diameter micro-capsule structure, Sipix's is 0.15mm-diameter microcup."
This is a sentence fragment, and not a good one, in that it's intended completion is not obvious.
:"... Sipix's is 0.15mm-diameter microcup provides the best contrast ratio available"?
:"... Sipix's is 0.15mm-diameter microcup has the highest resolution on the market"?
:"... Sipix's is 0.15mm-diameter microcup is the suckiest, most overpriced product imaginable"?
Someone who knows what this was supposed to say needs to complete it, or it needs to be removed.
Joe Avins (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Technologies

message: Sixth paragraph.
:"Other than E-Ink's 0.04mm-diameter micro-capsule structure, Sipix's is 0.15mm-diameter microcup."
This is a sentence fragment, and not a good one, in that it's intended completion is not obvious.
:"... Sipix's is 0.15mm-diameter microcup provides the best contrast ratio available"?
:"... Sipix's is 0.15mm-diameter microcup has the highest resolution on the market"?
:"... Sipix's is 0.15mm-diameter microcup is the suckiest, most overpriced product imaginable"?
Someone who knows what this was supposed to say needs to complete it, or it needs to be removed.
Joe Avins (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Electrophoretic

message: The disadvantage section mentions low refresh rates. 
With the recent video playback demonstration by Bookeen,  probably that should be changed? 
Reference:  short description and even shorter video
Another one: An engaged article
Klimov (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refresh rates breakthrough  

message: From one side the e-Ink displays are very often praised for their flexibility. On the other side there are plenty of complaints about e-Ink Book Readers' glass breakage. The obvious question is: why they do not make e-readers with flexible displays? BPK (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glass breakage 

message: I would like to add a new manufacturer: Etulipa. This is a start-up in the Netherlands. They develop reflective displays for outdoor use, based on electrowettingCarlaverweerden (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is specifically [[[WP:NOT|not]] a place to make lists of manufacturers. - MrOllie (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  display manufacturers 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Electronic paper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sipix.com/applications/pricinglabels.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100315092211/http://www.ntera.com/ to http://www.ntera.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100325033542/http://www.seikowatches.com/baselworld/2010/precon/0402-epd.html to http://www.seikowatches.com/baselworld/2010/precon/0402-epd.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140525200255/http://www.sharpmemorylcd.com/aboutmemorylcd.html to http://www.sharpmemorylcd.com/aboutmemorylcd.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Electronic paper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091207154450/http://www.avesodisplays.com/ to http://www.avesodisplays.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The introduction section to this discusses the state of the technology with explicit mention to 2008, with 2008 being considered recent. Should this be improved to either be more up to date or less specific?
The particular sentence in question is:
"The contrast ratio in electronic displays available as of 2008 approaches newspaper, and newly (2008) developed displays are slightly better."
  () 05:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro section dates 

message: I would like to learn about this technology. In high school in the early 80s, this was the stuff of fantasy, but they were thinking about it. But reading only the lede, it appears as though 2008 was the year when this technology peaked. Everything is new as of 2008. I know nothing about this subject, which is why I'm here. Can anyone who knows about this topic have a look and give the lede an overhaul that reflects the technology today? Is it dead? (I hope not!) Thanks! Dcs002 (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree. this document is now 12 years out of date with its info. i can say the tech is not dead and there has been quite a body of new progress made with the concept of non light emitting screen tech. a lot of effort is being placed on refresh rates and color. i do not have the articles on me right now, i simply am advocating that this page be updated. 69.254.201.70 (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update the lede? 

message: Actually, I, with no connection to E Ink Corporation, added the Edit request tag (above), so that this gets looked at in a timely fashion. David notMD (talk) 07:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Changes From E Ink 

message: #The links you've provided to Google docs are not useful for making suggestions here. The proposed text needs to be proposed here on the talk page.
#Discussions that you've had with other editors regarding removal of "also known as synonyms" need to be discussed with those editors outside of the COI edit request process. If those changes were made, and then reverted by another editor, that means the changes are controversial, and need to be discussed outside of the COI edit request review process..  Regards,  Spintendo  23:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 7-SEP-2023

message: According to °Unlike conventional flat panel displays that emit light, an electronic paper display reflects ambient light, like paper° reflective LCDs should be included. That is because of my edit. ~~~~ mcg (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reflect LCDs