This is the worst monitor ever, and that’s the point - Dasung PaperlikeU E-ink Display

[GOTSpectrum]

8 minutes ago, AbsoluteWoo said:

If you stretch just a little bit further you may reach those straws you are clutching at.

Some people will never be happy. I had my issues with LTT, I don't really watch their content unless I am highly interested in the subject of the video but this eink display was really interesting to me, because I love eink tbh. 

 

I don't think they said or did anything wrong here personally unlike the monoblock situation where IMO they did. 

[Agall]

Likely best suited as a tertiary monitor for specific content, but they'd have to correct the issue with text to practically make it an E-reader for your PC. In the same vein, it almost doesn't make sense as a normal display output rather than just a large e-reader.

 

Idea I have is just as a USB input to the PC with a hot folder that you can drop in a file that it can read, like a PDF. Then either have hotkeys for scrolling/zooming that can work or a separate input you can put on the left side of your keyboard to control it.

[Alvin853]

Can you clarify how this monitor was acquired? Did LMG find this, decided to buy it and do a video on it, or were you approached by the manufacturer to make a showcase?

[GOTSpectrum]

1 minute ago, Caroline said:

Ah, Schrödinger's monitor, it's both a [product] and [(not) a product] at the same time.

 

I mean it's not bad if you're only working with text processors, spreadsheets, DBs, even terminal inputs that heavily rely on text. This would be great for sysadmins and coders.

tbh I'd get something like this just to read books and manga (it's literature too) because I absolutely hate reading on the computer and staring at a monitor, even if said monitor is a CRT that's like 10x easier on my eyes than ultrabrite pro plus max 1000000 nits LED screens.

If I had a space to have a writing den and the money I would 100% be interested in either this or the potential colour model. 

[RandomLegoBrick]

interesting to see such a large eink panel, the price is kinda insane though. especially considering that a 7 inch color eink display costs around 70 bucks (albeit that it runs on an spi interface haha)

[Issac Zachary]

Very interesting video. I like the idea of E-Ink but probably wouldn't get one, even if it were much cheaper.

 

There are also expensive RLCD monitors available that I'd like to see reviewed.

[Arika]

Linus: "I'm never going to get one of those stupid screen bar lights that Andy has"

 

Also Linus: "ooooh a FRONT light!"

[RainbowWings]

This monitor from Dasung seems to be a prettry old product. Perhaps a similar product(Mira pro) from Boox will have a better experience, since it has a higher refresh rate. The product is also cheaper for 1700$. 

Here is the link : https://shop.boox.com/collections/all/products/boox-mira-pro (in English) https://zh.boox.com/mirapro (in Chinese)

[kurangak]

8 hours ago, mMontana said:

X for doubt was. I doubted correctly.

 

So. One of the no-no firing up the community was a "not review" of a prototype. Which was a expensive prototype of a mature product made by a startup. Bashed as crap.

Current release is about... a product, an immature product for the mainstream market. Made by a long player of the market, which costs a bazilion of queens. Still bashed as crap. Sort of.

 

The underlying innunendo I find is that 

both costs a lot (eInk monitor starts from 2x to 2.5x than the waterblock) 

both could both easily marked from starters as crap without testing

both are not really a product, even if one is (I mean... eInk Monitor have totally no alternatives, currently, while waterblock has... unless currently no one does like that)

and the underlying innuendo for me... is for LMG to prove a point: Mr Sebastian did not step back at all from the Billet labs mistake, but double down with this eInk monitor.

 

The most dissatisfying flavour in my mouth is that... this immature product deserved more attention and respect than the waterblock from Billet Labs. Maybe Dasung is such a bigger company than a startup?

I will not ever have proof of why.

 

Eventually... this is all my personal point of view and I'm allucinating seeing this. Currently I don't feel like that... 

[mMontana]

Yet still published as the first video after the timeout?

[kurangak]

1 hour ago, mMontana said:

Yet still published as the first video after the timeout?

why not? they properly tested it this time. they stated the use best use case scenario for the product. they counterclaim the manufacturer's claim with citation instead of just 'trust me bro'.

its a polished video compared to the steaming pile of **** that billetlab video is.

frankly, i dont care about billetlab anymore. they got their compensation and let it be the end of it. 

[Error 52]

6 hours ago, kurangak said:

I could tell because when he went to the forums they weren't on fire.

[Stahlmann]

19 hours ago, mMontana said:

The most dissatisfying flavour in my mouth is that... this immature product deserved more attention and respect than the waterblock from Billet Labs. Maybe Dasung is such a bigger company than a startup?

I will not ever have proof of why.

 

Eventually... this is all my personal point of view and I'm allucinating seeing this. Currently I don't feel like that... 

 

So you're saying no matter what they would have done with the video, you'd disapprove?

 

 

17 hours ago, Caroline said:

Ah, Schrödinger's monitor, it's both a [product] and [(not) a product] at the same time.

 

I mean it's not bad if you're only working with text processors, spreadsheets, DBs, even terminal inputs that heavily rely on text. This would be great for sysadmins and coders.

tbh I'd get something like this just to read books and manga (it's literature too) because I absolutely hate reading on the computer and staring at a monitor, even if said monitor is a CRT that's like 10x easier on my eyes than ultrabrite pro plus max 1000000 nits LED screens.

From what i saw in the video it wouldn't even be good as a text reading display. If you have to scroll down 3 lines, everything becomes a ghosting mess until you manually refresh the screen. Reading on a flicker free 27" 4K LED monitor that has it's brightness turned down is probably not even noticeably more straining on the eyes. I can't say for sure because i haven't seen an eInk display with my own eyes, but i already have no eye strain issues with the 24" 1080p LED monitors i have at work. And i can't imagine the eInk display being 20x better to justify it's price. (On top of the useability downside with practically everything that isn't a still page of text.)

[mMontana]

52 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

So you're saying no matter what they would have done with the video, you'd disapprove?

I said about what I saw. I don't know which were the other options available for release.

I can analyze only what's published, not what's still into LMG mind or archive.

[Middcore]

14 hours ago, RainbowWings said:

This monitor from Dasung seems to be a prettry old product. Perhaps a similar product(Mira pro) from Boox will have a better experience, since it has a higher refresh rate. The product is also cheaper for 1700$. 

Here is the link : https://shop.boox.com/collections/all/products/boox-mira-pro (in English) https://zh.boox.com/mirapro (in Chinese)

 

Still too much for what it is, I think. 

 

I can see professional writers wanting something like this to connect to a computer with no internet access for long periods of distraction free work.

 

Of course, that's an insanely niche market.

 

They probably sort of feel like they can almost charge whatever they want because this will never be a high-volume product and they think that the tiny niche of people who "need" this (or have convinced themselves they do) will pay what it costs. 

 

I could never justify these (even though I am a professional writer, sort of) for a whole bunch of reasons, of which cost (even the "cheap" one linked above) is only one. But it doesn't bother me that they exist. This idea is just "useful" enough that it falls into the realm of making me amused that it exists and wishing people who would actually buy it well instead of making me angry because it's an outright scam. 

[XNOR]

It's always nice to see an Adam video, but I'm not sure how to feel about this one. It's clear various people have various notions about it, some clearly more motivated by what happened than by the video itself, so I guess it can't hurt to add yet another opinion to the pile.

 

I'm a bit disappointed that, even though it was explicitly mentioned in the video that they weren't trying to shit on the monitor, it still was mostly that. The actual portion of the video about reading text was quite short. A minute if you count the Word part, or a little over a minute and a half if you count the Kindle part too, in a video over 15 minutes long. Unless I missed it, I don't think I saw any .pdfs or similar text based formats being shown. It seems only fair to highlight the shortcomings of the monitor when used as a regular monitor, but it doesn't seem we got a good impression of the part it should excel at. Is this a great second monitor for people digging through documents all day? I don't really know, though I'd love to hear about it. We mostly heard it sucks as a regular monitor, which was a foregone conclusion if you know anything about ePaper. It's an expensive niche product, so I kind of want to know whether it successfully fills that niche.

 

I'm also still not a fan of the conclusion-less videos with the sudden ending. Maybe it's good for the algorithm, I'm not in a position to judge, but it's definitely jarring and negatively impacts the overall quality of the video. Videos don't always have to follow convention if it can do better, but this ain't that.

[wanderingfool2]

21 hours ago, Sauron said:

I like the addition of citations and source links

Source links are good...except if you actually follow and read it; and the compare it to what they were comparing against.

 

It's pretty pointless citing sources and pretending they are talking about the comparisons between the product; when in actuality it's a mean nothing source or doesn't properly address the claim.

 

 

 

Since LMG apparently doesn't bother doing proper research into their busting of the claim; lets ACTUALLY post some better citations (which does seem to counter the first statement that LMG was so quick to dismiss by 2 terrible citations)

 

Here's my citation, National Library of Medicine published paper (Comparing LCD, e-ink, vs paper)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3873942/

Quote

Results from both objective (Blinks per second) and subjective (Visual Fatigue Scale) measures suggested that reading on the LCD (Kindle Fire HD) triggers higher visual fatigue with respect to both the E-ink (Kindle Paperwhite) and the paper book

Let's look at the table 3 (You can search it, but here is a link to the table direct)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3873942/table/pone-0083676-t003/?report=objectonly

Here's the quote (it's terribly formatted, suggest going to the link but I've bolded the line)

Quote

Table 3
Means and standard deviations (italic) for each of the dependent variables.
Dependent Variable    Reading Device
LCD    E-ink    Paper
CFF (Hz)    Before    41,60 (1,66)    41,54 (1,65)    41,82 (1,70)
After    40,65 (1,48)    41(1,76)    41,28 (1,44)
VFS (1–10)    Before    1,76 (0,62)    1,85 (0,89)    1,79 (1)
After    3,36 (1,55)    2,90 (1,65)    2,44 (1,58)
BPS (blinks/second)    0,43 (0,19)    0,61 (0,25)    0,61 (0,32)
Subjective Preference(1–7)    3,55 (1,44)    4,45 (1,88)    6,64 (0,64)
 

So with LCD, you have 0.43 blinks per second

e-ink technology it's 0.61 blinks per seconds

 

Now lets see, what does higher blinks per second mean...it means less dry eyes (as per LMG's quoted source).

 

LMG's quoted source [1] and [2] actually doesn't address the point made that they are supposed to support; while the general advise of looking away is good, the cited links 1 and 2 don't actually refute what was said.  Actually, LMG made the worse mistake of saying that e-ink doesn't change it because "it's still a monitor"; which based on the above study (and multiple  other studies) shows that e-ink and LCD/LED/oLED are different in terms of how we perceive it.

 

 

Or you know, if one study isn't good enough here's another study

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8212737/

It's essentially e-ink vs oLED (a 2021 study)

Quote

NIBUT and FBUT were decreased statistically significantly after participants read on an OLED screen for 2 hours compared with the baseline in light and dark environments, whereas no statistically significant decrease was observed on an eINK screen. NIKTMH was statistically significantly decreased after reading on an OLED screen in light and dark settings, and the eINK screen had a lesser effect on NIKTMH. An obvious increase in the ocular redness, OSDI and CVS‐Q scores was observed after reading on an OLED screen, whereas the eINK screen had a lesser effect on these indicators. Blink rate increased gradually in OLED subgroups during the reading task, whereas no statistically significant difference was observed in the eINK subgroups. Our research suggested that reading on an OLED screen can cause ocular surface disorder and obvious subjective discomfort, whereas reading on an eINK screen can minimize ocular surface disorder in both dark and light environments

 

At this point, I'm not going to bother citing more to counter the point of [1] and [2]; after all, @LinusTech had how many days to make sure the video that they made their debut comeback didn't have faults in it; and yet they can't be bothered to actually consider the sources they are citing.

 

Instead citing sources that apply generally; and somehow claiming that eINK vs LCD doesn't make a difference (despite there being evidence that there is a difference).

 

Blue light

No issue here, blue light stuff is marketing fluff (in general); the only thing that this could prevent really is trying to go to sleep (the damage and stuff isn't as much)...but for eye damage I couldn't find any medical journal/study that said it could.

 

 

LCD Flicker

For the LCD flicker one, (a) your source actually lists OLED as not being flicker free, and (b) Guess what happens if you filter for modern monitors tested in 2022 or 2023... 2023 monitors they tested 7 out of 16 (43%) monitors that they rated had flicker.  2022 had 10 out of 36 (33%) had flicker, according to their standards

 

While you could try claiming the word "most" still applies; it's not exactly instilling confidence if you ignore that you have a greater than 1/3 shot if you were to pick one off their list.

 

Then there is my whole gripe of "perceived" flicker.  You don't have to perceive something for it to become an issue.  I've known people who had a monitor that I could notice a flicker on; and they couldn't.  The instant I switched the monitor out they had less things such as head-aches.  You don't have to necessarily see something in order for it to be an issue.  With that said, I haven't really seen any studies that actually tested light flicker with eye-strain; so at best can only say it's an unverified claim.  (With most studies only focusing on if you perceive a difference)

 

No Radiation

While it's true that all electronics emit EM; it's not always the ionizing ones that people care about.  While I do think it's misleading what they mentioned, some hearing aids can get wonky/distortion around things like monitors (also computers for that matter, but they can be kept further away).  Not sure that's really caused by the display technology itself though.

 

Other things being UV; which is also non-ionizing can still be an issue.  Although older LCD's didn't really emit too many of them, but it still technically existed. (Not sure about the LED tech; never bothered looking)

 

Appeal to nature

This screams, I didn't do my research.  It's a strawman argument, and doesn't try to refute the claim.

Again look at the following sources

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8212737/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3873942/

Both offer studies that shows there is a difference between consuming content on eINK vs LCD/OLED

 

 

 

Either way though, the general claim that eINK is better for your eyes, at least from the studies I have seen where it's a direct comparison between LCD vs eINK seems to really suggest that there is at least some credence to the claims; and not how you guys painted it as.

[AdamFromLTT]

On 8/31/2023 at 12:49 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

Source links are good...except if you actually follow and read it; and the compare it to what they were comparing against.

 

It's pretty pointless citing sources and pretending they are talking about the comparisons between the product; when in actuality it's a mean nothing source or doesn't properly address the claim.

Hey wanderingfool2,
 

Thank you for providing your feedback, comments like yours help shed light on areas we can improve upon.

We want to let you know that we are taking your post seriously, and that we launched an internal investigation to look deeper into this issue. After reading over our sources and claims once again, you are right, we did make some mistakes with our approach. 

You’re correct in that our first two sources don’t directly prove our claim that “light from emissive displays doesn’t cause dry eyes”. Both sources discuss many of the common causes of eye strain and dry eyes, but neither states nor proves that the light from emissive displays doesn’t cause dry eyes. We shouldn’t have made such an authoritative and definitive statement, especially without rigorous sources that can strongly support our claims.

Our intention isn’t to mislead consumers, but rather to arm them with a skeptical mindset whenever they see health or wellness claims on tech products. A better approach for us would’ve been to point out that Dasung makes many claims about the health benefits of e-ink, without providing their own sources to back up their claims. Without strong evidence for their claims, we were skeptical of their validity. This was the point we were trying to get across, but our execution was poor and we were a bit overzealous with trying to prove our own viewpoints instead.

The results from our findings sparked an internal discussion on how to handle these types of situations moving forward, so I’d like to share with you some of the outcomes from that meeting.

Moving forward, we’re going to be a lot more careful about the claims we make, and when we make them. We’ll stray away from making authoritative statements on areas of science that aren’t already generally accepted as true (e.g. gravity pulls objects down). Scientific research rarely allows for broad sweeping conclusions, so if we make claims, we’ll be clearer about what the leading research suggests- similar to how we worded our statements on blue light.

We’ll also be more diligent with locating our sources. In hindsight, the first source we provided isn’t nearly rigorous enough to back up any definitive statements: it lacks an author, a publishing date, and any citations to the claims it makes. Furthermore, it states that blue light is harmful, which puts a bit of egg on our face as that’s contradictory to our other claims. Deciphering the validity and rigorousness of a source is a difficult task, and it’s an area we still need to work on. In general, though, we’ll try to avoid making claims that put us in these types of situations.

I hope that our response and actions have addressed your primary concerns.

We didn’t discuss every topic you brought forth, the validity of your counter-claims, or the robustness of the sources you cited, and that’s because the crux of the issue- and the thing we can control moving forward - has to do with our claims and how we support them, so that’s what we’re focusing on. If you feel there’s more to discuss, please feel free to respond - we’re always looking for constructive feedback.
 

Thanks