http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/ Engadget Comments for Epson's 7.1-inch, QXGA e-paper http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2008 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/Jun 12th 2006 10:28AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/
This is awsome!!!!!

E-Paper!!!!!!!!!!

I WANT SOME!!!!]]>Jun 12th 2006 10:33AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/Jun 12th 2006 10:35AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/Jun 12th 2006 10:43AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/Jun 12th 2006 10:43AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/
That's like saying something has an area of six inches.

Dr. Zelby would give you an F.]]>Jun 12th 2006 10:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/Jun 12th 2006 10:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/
But my question is, how much does it cost to produce one of these? I'm guessing that it's fairly cost-prohibitive at this stage.]]>Jun 12th 2006 11:14AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/Jun 12th 2006 11:37AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/Jun 12th 2006 11:45AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/]]>Jun 12th 2006 11:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/Jun 12th 2006 11:52AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/Jun 12th 2006 11:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/
"and draws a maximum of just six volts of power" is meaningless -- you can draw current, but voltage is what gets applied. And it's voltage x current that gives you power. So, for all we know, this new gadget runs on 6V at 1000 Amps and uses the same amount of power as microwave ovens.

To the engadget author's defense, the mis-type was just based on the poor wording of the original article: "Maximum drive voltage even for editing information is just 6 volts, showing that the display itself consumes very little power." -- an eggregious error as voltage is only 1/2 the Power equation.

Perhaps this is meant to imply that the device can run off of 6V in batteries (but is it 4x1.5V AAA, AA, C, or D cells that are required? Or one of those giant 6V Lantern Batteries?)]]>Jun 12th 2006 12:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/
Why doesn't the computer industry just drop the whole __GA codewords related to resolution and just use ___x___? Those are obsolete terms from the original PC graphics cards. They have to keep inventing new codewords on a daily basis to describe oddball resolutions, HD, widescreen, etc... It's annoying.
]]>Jun 12th 2006 12:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/
No, it just works differently than monitors, what with the no backlighting and all.

10:1 is roughly the same contrast you'd get with black text printed on -slightly- gray paper. ]]>Jun 12th 2006 1:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/-Taylor]]>Jun 12th 2006 1:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/Jun 12th 2006 5:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/A4 is a 210x297mm size, 364mm diag.(14.3')
Dividing 297 by 2 gives 148mm, and the name is A5 :
148x210mm size, 182mm diag (7.1').
Dividing 210 by 2 gives 105mm and the name is A6...

Remind format name: Ax with x=power of two dividing the reference 1 square meter, name A0 (841x1189 mm)
Get ritcher information :
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-paper.html]]>Sep 13th 2006 4:44AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/12/epsons-7-1-inch-qxga-e-paper/If you have a display that emits light, rather than working with reflective light [the way paper does], the reflective display will have a lower contrast ratio. However, in 'normal reading' this is an advantage. It is generally acknowledged that it is not as comfortable to read small text from a glowing display as from a reflective display [i.e a book, magazine, or paper].
It's horses for courses.]]>Nov 3rd 2006 7:39AM