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.
aix1 4 hours ago [-]
Great work. I loved the technical innovations.
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.
RossBencina 1 hours ago [-]
I think the standard drivers take temperature into account.
gblargg 31 minutes ago [-]
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.
eternauta3k 4 hours ago [-]
Or with aging.
There has to be a reason the e-ink industry hasn't done this yet...
y1n0 4 hours ago [-]
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.
cubefox 5 minutes ago [-]
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.
Lerc 4 hours ago [-]
Ok I'm confused now. So is this thing considered epaper, eink, both or neither?
Is one a subset of the other? If so which is the superset?
y1n0 4 hours ago [-]
E ink is a trademark name for electrophoretic displays (magnetic particles) by the company also called E ink.
E-paper is an informal category that anyone can use for any display type.
if this display is one that everyone understands is epaper then what's the problem
mdp2021 1 hours ago [-]
> 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.
novia 2 hours ago [-]
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.
RossBencina 2 hours ago [-]
Awesome work. I wonder whether the four grey-level calibration could have been fully automated rather than keeping human in the loop.
landgenoot 1 hours ago [-]
Why didn't the manufacturer invent this themselves?
anonymous_user9 23 minutes ago [-]
Driving e-ink displays faster usually wears them out more quickly.
larodi 4 hours ago [-]
Dither and LUTs - my best friends on ESP32 and paper. Great work also!
somat 3 hours ago [-]
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?
RossBencina 1 hours ago [-]
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.
mdp2021 1 hours ago [-]
> the ... point
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).
kogens 2 hours ago [-]
Great readability in direct sunlight without needing to compensate with a powerful front/backlight is one good argument.
Reading a book on e-paper in daylight is so much nicer than on a phone, for example.
sehw 3 hours ago [-]
They claim e-paper doesn't rape your eyes due to it being passive.
tomtomistaken 4 hours ago [-]
Amazing project, thank you! Keep us updated!
hobo123 4 hours ago [-]
Amazing. Now I want my Kindle to use this driver and run stock Android.
Rendered at 09:37:29 GMT+0000 (UTC) with Wasmer Edge.
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...
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.
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.
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).
Reading a book on e-paper in daylight is so much nicer than on a phone, for example.