disappointed with the glowlight

[Larryb52]

well I got it & lets just say the contrast is horrible, I will be returning it ASAP, it would be tonight but I had a dentist appointment & I'm just not feel like going back out, BN really did not do themselves any justice with this...

[northlite]

---

Larryb52 wrote:

well I got it & lets just say the contrast is horrible, I will be returning it ASAP, it would be tonight but I had a dentist appointment & I'm just not feel like going back out, BN really did not do themselves any justice with this...

---

I absolutely love mine. The contrast on mine is fine...I compared the same book on the same page on my Simple Touch and my GlowLight side by side...and there is no noticeable difference in contrast. I think you should exchange it. Maybe you got a poor unit.

[Larryb52]

they dont have any to exchange for...i'd rather use a light as I don't think it would be better, the screen protection is what does it IMO...also the quality control is bad..,

[Larryb52]

I'll take back what I said after reading awhile you get use to it & I don't see the difference now, I guess coming home tired and hungry does not make for a good critic...page turns are faster & the glowlight works like a charm, glad I didn't just turn around and take it back...

[DeanGibson Distinguished Bibliophile]

---

Larryb52 wrote:

well I got it & lets just say the contrast is horrible,...

---

---

Larryb52 wrote:

... I don't see the difference now, I guess coming home tired and hungry does not make for a good critic...page turns are faster & the glowlight works like a charm, glad I didn't just turn around and take it back...

---

I did a little experiment.  I placed both the Touch and the Glow (light off) next to each other in direct sunlight, viewed them through a photographic-quality polarizing filter, and then rotated the filter.  Results:

1. The image from the two screens is not polarized.
2. The reflection from the plastic rubber border is polarized (the border goes from grey to black).

Needless to say, the perception of a difference is affected by the light reflected from the border.  I wonder if the light in the stores is polarized?

[keriflur]

---

DeanGibson wrote:

---

Larryb52 wrote:

well I got it & lets just say the contrast is horrible,...

---

---

Larryb52 wrote:

... I don't see the difference now, I guess coming home tired and hungry does not make for a good critic...page turns are faster & the glowlight works like a charm, glad I didn't just turn around and take it back...

---

I did a little experiment.  I placed both the Touch and the Glow (light off) next to each other in direct sunlight, viewed them through a photographic-quality polarizing filter, and then rotated the filter.  Results:

1. The image from the two screens is not polarized.
2. The reflection from the plastic border is polarized (the border goes from grey to black).

Needless to say, the perception of a difference is affected by the light reflected from the border.

---

But the grey border on the Glow is not not next to the screen, the black rubber is.  Or are you talking about a different border?

[DeanGibson Distinguished Bibliophile]

---

keriflur wrote:

---

DeanGibson wrote:

---

Larryb52 wrote:

well I got it & lets just say the contrast is horrible,...

---

---

Larryb52 wrote:

... I don't see the difference now, I guess coming home tired and hungry does not make for a good critic...page turns are faster & the glowlight works like a charm, glad I didn't just turn around and take it back...

---

I did a little experiment.  I placed both the Touch and the Glow (light off) next to each other in direct sunlight, viewed them through a photographic-quality polarizing filter, and then rotated the filter.  Results:

1. The image from the two screens is not polarized.
2. The reflection from the plastic rubber border is polarized (the border goes from grey to black).

Needless to say, the perception of a difference is affected by the light reflected from the border.  I wonder if the light in the stores is polarized?

---

But the grey border on the Glow is not next to the screen, the black rubber is.  Or are you talking about a different border?

---

The black rubber, except that I perceive it in most light to be dark grey (the Glow's plastic edge I perceive to be silver).  Perhaps this is one of the problems ...

Remember the message ( http://bookclubs.barnesandnoble.com/t5/NOOK-Simple-Touch-General/PreOrdering-Policy-rediculous/m-p/1... ) with this image I posted a few days ago?

---

keriflur wrote:

People "see" differently, because we see with our minds, not our eyes.  So it's completely possible that some people won't see the difference, some will see the difference only in certain light, and some will see the difference in all lights and find it so glaring that they can't stand to use the less-contrasty device.

---

The bar above is a constant grey. See http://www.123opticalillusions.com/pages/gradient_illusion.php

[keriflur]

---

DeanGibson wrote:

---

keriflur wrote:

---

DeanGibson wrote:

---

Larryb52 wrote:

well I got it & lets just say the contrast is horrible,...

---

---

Larryb52 wrote:

... I don't see the difference now, I guess coming home tired and hungry does not make for a good critic...page turns are faster & the glowlight works like a charm, glad I didn't just turn around and take it back...

---

I did a little experiment.  I placed both the Touch and the Glow (light off) next to each other in direct sunlight, viewed them through a photographic-quality polarizing filter, and then rotated the filter.  Results:

1. The image from the two screens is not polarized.
2. The reflection from the plastic rubber border is polarized (the border goes from grey to black).

Needless to say, the perception of a difference is affected by the light reflected from the border.

---

But the grey border on the Glow is not not next to the screen, the black rubber is.  Or are you talking about a different border?

---

 The black rubber, except that I perceive it in most light to be dark grey.  Perhaps this is one of the problems ...

Remember the message ( http://bookclubs.barnesandnoble.com/t5/NOOK-Simple-Touch-General/PreOrdering-Policy-rediculous/m-p/1... ) with this image I posted a few days ago?

---

keriflur wrote:

People "see" differently, because we see with our minds, not our eyes.  So it's completely possible that some people won't see the difference, some will see the difference only in certain light, and some will see the difference in all lights and find it so glaring that they can't stand to use the less-contrasty device.

---

The bar above is a constant grey. See http://www.123opticalillusions.com/pages/gradient_illusion.php

---

Yes, but the black/grey rubber is the same on both the N2E and the Glow, so why would this be the source of the difference in contrast that some people are perceiving?

[DeanGibson Distinguished Bibliophile]

---

keriflur wrote:

Yes, but the black/grey rubber is the same on both the N2E and the Glow, so why would this be the source of the difference in contrast that some people are perceiving?

---

A difference in the angle of view that the two are held, or the angle of the light?  Of course, this works both ways, but it could even depend upon which device is on the left and which is on the right, as to how much of a difference is perceived.

Clearly there is a contrast difference.  For me it is very slight, but in limited experiements, I have seen that difference vary (again, very slightly) with different lighting conditions.

I do thank "Larryb52" for having the guts to admit that he now sees little/no difference.  I think his messages lead to interesting experiments about the difference and change in perception.  Eg, possible factors:

1. Lighting conditions when viewed (duh).
2. How tired your eyes are when making the comparison.
3. Your visual acuity.  I'd guess those with 20/20 vision (including corrected) have less of a problem with the difference than those with poorer vision.
4. What you have been viewing in the last few seconds before the comparison.  There are a number of visual illusions based upon this factor;  most involve color shifts in the next item viewed.

So, I don't have an explanation;  I have factors.  Hopefully this will help someone come up with the answer.

[akaCat]

---

keriflur wrote:

Yes, but the black/grey rubber is the same on both the N2E and the Glow, so why would this be the source of the difference in contrast that some people are perceiving?

---

I've got both the N2E and the Glow, and although the wider rubber border looks the same on each, there is a difference in the texture. That could cause them to look different in some lighting. (It may not be N2E vs Glow -- my N2E is from that first batch, so maybe the change was made to the N2Es before the Glow came out.)

[roustabout]

On Saturday, my local BN finally got their glowworms restocked, so I reimaged and returned my unit for one with a more evenly applied screen protector. 

I posted a photo a bit back - the screen, especially when lit, was pretty uneven across the lower third of the screen.  

The new screen is better as far as evenness of lighting goes (especially compared to the other one, which now looks as if it has the evenness problem.)  It also appears better in terms of contrast when lit or not lit.  Interestingly to me, it looks worse if  you peer at it edge on and count the LEDs and compare their relative brightness.  My impression is that getting the screen protection applied correctly is still a challening process.  

Last night, we had both glowworms and one of the NSTs out.  I still noted the NST as having higher contrast.  Not hugely;  it's something I only really register when I'm looking at them side by side.  The  NoRefreshToggle app from XDA (http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1502723) may improve it even further - it basically flattens the display to a true monochrome.  I was quite impressed with the improvement in performance it gave when reading articles in Newsrob.

I haven't yet compared a stock NST to a norefresh glowworm.  

Dean's point about the grey border, in a situation where the light is polarized, contributing to an apparent change in screen contrast is really quite interesting.   Even if our eyes can't see the color difference, the polarization could mean fewer photons are hitting our eyes from the border.  The chunks of our brains that sees things is fully able to do sums and integration over areas without discussing this with us consciously.  (Well, without discussing with me.  Dean's probably upgraded his firmware so he has access to the calculations.)  

[Sun_Cat]

---

roustabout wrote:
The chunks of our brains that sees things is fully able to do sums and integration over areas without discussing this with us consciously.  (Well, with[out] discussing with me.  Dean's probably upgraded his firmware so he has access to the calculations.)

---

Made me laugh. Thanks!

[keriflur]

---

roustabout wrote:

Dean's point about the grey border, in a situation where the light is polarized, contributing to an apparent change in screen contrast is really quite interesting.   Even if our eyes can't see the color difference, the polarization could mean fewer photons are hitting our eyes from the border.  The chunks of our brains that sees things is fully able to do sums and integration over areas without discussing this with us consciously.  (Well, without discussing with me.  Dean's probably upgraded his firmware so he has access to the calculations.)  

---

In side-by-side comparison, do you see a difference in color in the rubberized frame between the glow and the N2E?

[roustabout]

"In side-by-side comparison, do you see a difference in color in the rubberized frame between the glow and the N2E?"  

Not sure -- what I really noticed was the difference in feel.  I like the NST more;  the glowworm is slicker and feels more droppable/less proppable.  This weekend I will probably pick up some craft plywood and corduroy and make a couple of covers.  (Especially after seeing the photo of what happens when you nick the glowworms' surface laminate - you get a nasty bright spot.  For the first time, I think ever, I bought the extended warranty, since I think that those hotspots are going to be very hard to fix.)  

My cover is 4 pieces of velcro, a piece of corduroy and some very light plywood.  Two velcro on the back, the corduroy wrapped around the wood leaving a "tail" to put  two more pieces of velcro on and extend over the back.  Get the wood measured right, and you can rest it along the inner trim of the device without activating any of the buttons but providing a nice buffer against bad things in pocketses.  

[Larryb52]

its not polarized light, its less sientific than that , they had to do something screen wise so it would not cause too much glare, I think its the screen protector & I think it darkening the screen causing the print to look faded , either way I took mine back. It was unacceptable & along witht he mem card issue I wasn't going to accept it when I have a good NST with good conrast and a workable mem card. BN messed this up rushing getting it to market...

[roustabout]

"they had to do something screen wise so it would not cause too much glare, I think its the screen protector"

My take  on the screen protector is that they're using it, essentially, as a light guide - not to cut glare but to keep the illumination fairly even going down the device. 

Your suggestion - that if they didn't have it, the light would be too bright even at its lowest setting - is a really interesting one, though. 

If I had cash to throw around on screwing up a device, I'd be tempted to see what would happen if I tried bleaching a small area of the screen.  I wonder if you could help the contrast that way. 

I'd also love to see the BN device skunkworks one day and see what one of these guys looks like with no screen protector installed! 

I replaced my first glowworm and am happier with the contrast overall on the second, and much happier with the evenness of the illumination - I think there's a manual step in applying the screen protectors. 

Something I've found which helps is to read using fbreader and a bold font setting.  There isn't a bold setting on the stock reader, but dialing the font size up a notch helps - there's more black area within each character and all are more legible. 

It would be nice if the stock software included a togglable bold setting somewhere.  I haven't seen that, though. 

[keriflur]

---

roustabout wrote:

"they had to do something screen wise so it would not cause too much glare, I think its the screen protector"

My take  on the screen protector is that they're using it, essentially, as a light guide - not to cut glare but to keep the illumination fairly even going down the device. 

Your suggestion - that if they didn't have it, the light would be too bright even at its lowest setting - is a really interesting one, though.

---

Didn't Sony try this without any sort of light guide and the light didn't provide enough illumination to light the entire screen (i.e. dark spot in the middle)?

I have to wonder, though, if maybe the texture of the "screen protector" isn't defracting the light in some way that reduces the contrast.  Theoretically, the "light guide" could be a crystal clear thin pane of glass that wouldn't decrease the external light on the screen when the glowlight was off, but this pane would then be reflective and cause issues when reading in sunlight, and would likely be more breakable, etc.  It's a conundrum.