It was submitted to HN 2 times already but unfortunately it flew under the radar: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwa...
Product questions that I couldn't find an answer to. From https://www.crowdsupply.com/modos-tech/modos-flow, I see "On the go, you can power Flow at up to 40 Hz with a single USB Type-C cable. At a desk, you can connect additional power and take advantage of its full 60 Hz refresh rate."
1) This surprises me a bit... is USB-PD incompatible with DisplayPort alt mode, or is this just based on an observation that display port devices tend to give limited power output?
2) Is every DisplayPort alt mode host able to give enough power to run at 40 Hz? In particular, can this be driven on the go directly from an iPhone?
3) Is that second USB port usable as a data port hubbed to the device when powering over the DisplayPort port?
4) I know it's possible to provide power from the display back to the host device when using DisplayPort alt mode -- when powering the display from the second USB-C port, is the connected device also powered?
The two use cases that would be super interesting to me is plugging this in to my iPhone or similar on-the-go, and plugging a USB-C keyboard into the second port on it for quick e-mails at the coffee shop and similar; and plugging this in to an iPhone, plugging my power bank into the monitor and keeping the monitor in high-power mode and the iPhone charging while working with a Bluetooth keyboard.
Obviously I don't expect it to handle these use cases out of the box, but... open source! This is really a question about what the hardware design is capable of, not the current software/firmware/FPGA capabilities.
2) I'd say yes (if the iphone supports it). Biggest caveat in my mind is whether the iphone allows enough current to drive the display.
3) Doubt it.
4) That is how these normally work, I don't know but that would be my expectation.
A claim in the video that I can't verify but makes economic/logistic sense is that the speed problem isn't the panels but the controllers. The current crop of controllers are optimized for low power, which fits the e-reader use case but that is not optimal for the interactive use case.
I don't understand the claim. It is lacking in specifics. Are they claiming that electrophoretic materials (meaning the panels) can actually switch (meaning move pigments) faster than say x.y micrometers per second? I don't think that is true. The article shows that what Wenting did ("binary transition") is pretty much the same as what companies like Dasung did. Instead of trying to have grayscale, it is faster to hit somewhat-black and somewhat-white and give the illusion of fast movement than actual fast movement.
No, I think the claim is that the controllers are slower that what the panels can theoretically support.
> No, I think the claim is that the controllers are slower that what the panels can theoretically support.
That claim that controllers are slower than panel (that's the electrophoretic material) doesn't seem reasonable to me. I guess that's why there's no specific numbers and data shown.
Why try to contort the technology for something it's not good at, instead of using a more appropriate technology like transflective LCDs? Eink isn't the only option for reflective displays. If you increase the power use of eink to get better refresh rates, I imagine you'd end up using more power than (and still end up with lower refresh rates than) an MIP display.
I don't understand the growth of the market as a whole for eink monitors, when tLCDs exist and are disappearing from the market.
Uses flipping wave interference for color. So cool. How do you make black? Easy! Humans can't see UV! :D
[1] https://goodereader.com/blog/electronic-readers/the-rise-and...
E-readers are vertically integrated devices: the hardware, software, UI, and refresh behavior are all tailored around reading. E-ink tablets like reMarkable are similar, but optimized around writing and annotation.
A traditional monitor is much more general-purpose, so it doesn't get the same kind of end-to-end optimization for the display medium. I think there's room for an in-between category: a more interactive e-ink device where both the hardware and software are designed around the strengths and limits of the panel.
There's some related work happening in this direction:
In TFA it is said that for these new faster panels the transition time of a pixel is around 50 ms. This is comparable with some old LCDs.
That said, I'm curious what impact the increased refresh rate might have on a Carta panel's longevity. I assume the physical medium that allows each 'pixel' to be on/off has a certain tolerance after which the screen begins to degrade beyond a usable state.
Separately, I also want to understand more about how Wenting's approach differs (or not) from the flickering modern displays use to emit a picture, and, whether the direction actually addresses eye strain or reproduces the same issues (I'm assuming are) inherent in LCD/LED displays — i.e. it's the flickering that strains our eyes, not just light.
Maybe someone more versed than I am in this space would know. After 10+ years of computer work... my eyes hurt and I really want this to be a game changer.
The E Ink material itself is long-lived, the main stress is on the driving electronics and waveform behavior during refreshes. Our approach doesn't add extra refresh cycles, the display starts responding sooner, which improves perceived speed without adding extra refreshes.
So far, fast refresh hasn't been the dominant failure mode in our testing. Physical stress, bending, pressure, heat, and moisture are much larger risks.
On eye strain: E Ink is reflective and bistable, so a static image doesn't require continuously emitted light. Fast updates can still produce artifacts like flashing, dithering, or ghosting, but that's a different issue from a display that continuously flickers.
So I'd say this addresses an important part of the problem, though comfort will vary by person.
Also I recommend checking out the following resources:
There are counter trends, like Garmin discontinuing their e-paper smartwatches. But hopefully that has more to do with that market being too narrow for viable alternatives, and not a fundamental issue with the economics of the displays themselves.
Bangle.js 3 is being discussed: https://github.com/orgs/espruino/discussions/7341
Nothing else has satisfied that so far, after trying nearly a dozen. They've all had flaky connections, bad battery life, and/or screens that need me to shield from the sun sometimes. And the apps they require, holy crap are they bad. Gadgetbridge isn't shiny but it at least lets you control what you need.
I truly wish it was button-based though. Touchscreens on your wrist suck so bad.
I don't mind myself, and especially in winter with mittens on I can – and often do – use my nose :-D
And in some situations I much prefer it to be disabled, otherwise it reads phantom touches. (Bangle.js 2 has an option to ignore touches, though I forget the details. iirc until button press, or tapping a very small unlock button on the corner of the screen. Works well as a preventative measure, but I've never seen that on other watches)
The display isn't as nice as Pebble Time (fewer colors, more directional, overall slightly dimmer) but it's more than functional enough. Transflective is obviously the right choice for watches, I don't know why everything else has gone for phone-like panels that are often unreadable and kill battery life.
Wait what? Do you have a source? I can't find anything about that, and I see the Instinct 3 is still being sold. Very disappointing if so, as that line has been the perfect pebble replacement for me.
I can't see them ever removing it from the Instinct line though, as that's the rugged one that signals tool.
Those are some mighty specs. Godspeed.
and it's open source so nothing stops a bigger producer of copying the exact technology with institutional funding and manufacturing expertise
Nothing to add, but it bears repeating. A shimmer of indie tech resilience
learnt a lot in the process too - kudos to him
Firmware can be checked here: https://gitlab.com/zephray/enchanter
Styluses w/ batteries/capacitors were okay once upon a time, but Wacom EMR "just works" and makes my life simpler/nicer (I couldn't count how many styluses I have around my house/in my bags so as to allow me to use my Samsung Galaxy Book 3 Pro 360, Galaxy Note 10+, Kindle Scribe Coloursoft, and Wacom One display (attached to a MacBook).
Bring back resistive touch!
That said, these days, I mostly use the Premium Pen included w/ my first-gen Kindle Scribe, or a Wacom One stylus (where the Staedtler used to be, prompted by my chipping and cracking the screen on my GB3 and having to apply a screen protector --- the harder tip on the W1 being a better match).
The Staedtler Noris Jumbo is nice, but I wish it had a side switch. The pens bundled w/ my Samsung Galaxy Books (panic-bought a spare when the afore-mentioned screen incident happened) are fine, but I am annoyed that there's no silo (agree w/ Samsung being hobbled by their agreement w/ Wacom being annoying). Don't like the feel of the white Kindle Scribe Coloursoft stylus --- too rubbery.
My backup is a Lamy Safari Wacom EMR which I keep in my travel sling bag --- if I could justify a second, I'd probably EDC it and it would get promoted to favourite.
There are a few others which I've been meaning to try....