Talk:Electronic paper

Merge

I propose this merge because:

1. They describe the same technology
2. The major company involved with its production is called "E ink" so 'E ink' is a more commonly used term in referring to the technology than 'E-paper'
3. The Electronic paper article is a mess anyway ;)

So I propose that electronic paper be converted into a redirect.  Run!  14:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I'm afraid I disagree. I'd always say electronic paper. ElliottHird 11:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree, electronic ink would imply the use of an ink-like liquid, which Fujitsu's electronic paper does not use. Your company "E-Ink" displays in four-colour grayscale, Fujitsu displays in full colour, quite a fundamental difference. See Link:OverClockersClub.com

Having investigated google results, it does indeed seem electronic paper is the more prevalent term. Perhaps the electronic paper article could be deleted and this one moved to take its place under the same name? (so that history is conserved)  -- Run!  15:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

E Ink is the trade name of an electronic paper product and manufacturer. To suggest electronic paper should direct to electronic ink is somewhat similar to saying that the write-up for facial tissue should be directed to the write-up for Kleenex.

---

I also think electronic ink should be made into a redirect, with much of its information moving to the electronic paper section.

Merge away.

• Merged Zeimusu | Talk page 13:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

How color e-ink displays work

I know how black and white e-ink display work using millions of tiny microcapsules each have positively charged white particles and negatively charged black particles or what ever. but how color e-ink display works?

[1] state:

"This electronic paper color prototype achieves 12-bit color in a 400x300 pixel format with resolution of 83 pixels per inch, using a custom color filter from strategic partner Toppan. The color filter design has a high-brightness layout (RGBW) that preserves the paper-like whiteness of the background page while enabling deep blacks for text and a range of colors and tones for images. A smart algorithm uses color sub-pixels to smooth black and white text, for enhanced legibility equivalent to a printer. The display diagonal is 6 inches, similar to a paperback book in size. "

but how this "RGBW" filter work? can some one explain this one to me. any ideas. and why color e-ink is not in the page.

The "filter" is actually an array of red, green, blue and clear color filters (see color filter arrays). By laying this on top of an existing black and white display, each pixel becomes a "sub-pixel" dedicated to just one of the forementioned colors. Since these sub-pixels are so close together, light reflected off of nearby ones would blend together in the eye. This allows for a whole range of colors to be reproduced. This is my whole understanding anyways --AWriterWandering (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

the e-ink page should be merged into this, because e-paper is better known

Wow

This is cool. The only way it could be any better would be if the paper could go clear. CrossEyed7 18:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

And if it were more commonly available. I'd love a laptop or pocket computer with a display like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.101.233 (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Jinke's Reader

Since e ink products from both Sony and Irex are listed Jinke's readers probably should as well. As far as I know these are the only three companies making e ink based readers at this time. Links for Jinke are listed below:

[2] HomePage

[3] V8 Reader (shipping now)

[4] V2 Reader (not yet available)

As long as the links direct the reader to a page with information on the technology (history, how it works, etc), then I don't see why not.  -- Run!  09:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture

It would be nice if the article could have a picture of a prototype or something instead of just the diagram. I haven't looked around yet but there must be something. - raptor 04:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

there are lots of pics on the net but i'm not sure what licence they are, see here. Hamish (Talk) 12:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've put one on now :) Hamish (Talk) 12:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Power Consumption

I read in a magazine that the power consumption needed to change the image on the screen is so tiny that the power from an RFID chip is enough, I imagine that this would mean that in the future credit cards etc could hold up-to-date information on the card surface. Any chance we could include something about this in the article? Hamish (Talk) 12:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"E Ink" and "e-ink"

There is an IP who is removing "e-ink" as a term used to refer to electronic paper on the argument that it is a non-genericised trademark. Since "e-XYZ" is an obvious and typical contraction of "electronic XYZ", it doesn't make much sense to not mention the term in the lead since "electronic ink" is inevitably contracted to "e-ink". Other thoughts? — Saxifrage ✎ 17:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm the contributor who has been making this change. I'm making it on the following basis. First, E Ink has been a trademark of E Ink Corporation since 1997, and as such should not be used as a generic term. Second, "electronic ink" is actually not a commonly-used term for "electronic paper" in the display industry -- the industry has stabilized on Electronic Paper Displays (EPD's) as a term for this class. — Rwzehner ✎ 19:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been calling it "electronic ink" since I first heard about it, but then my personal experience isn't citable in an article. How about this compromise: obviously you are involved in the industry and have useful information to contribute, so can you possibly come up with a reference for what terms are used? Really, the statement that it's also called XYZ and ABC should be backed up by a reference anyway. Given such a reference, we can report only the terms that the reference says are in common use and we won't have to argue about trademarks and such.

(Note that not any reference will do. It has to actually talk about what terms are used, not just use the terms. This might be hard to dig up.) — Saxifrage ✎ 19:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter whether it's trademark misuse or not. The fact of the matter is that the technology is sometimes referred to as e-ink. Just like "vacuum cleaner" is sometimes called a "hoover" (which is actually a brand of vacuum cleaner).  -- Run!  19:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sax, I'd be glad to put together some background information on this; it might take a couple of days -- I'll post back here. Run!, I would point you to the Wikipedia entries on Hoover, Xerox and Kleenex, which make a point of treading carefully on the underlying trademarks, even though these are well-known examples of tm's that have fallen into common usage. As the Xerox article points out, respected style guides such as AP recommend that trademarks be respected. I would have no problem with transferring some of this discussion into a section in the e-paper entry. — Rwzehner ✎ 21:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm back with some more information:

First, some Google searches: the first 30 or so links returned for the query "e-ink" refer strictly to the material produced by E Ink Corporation (even if not by name, they refer to particles moving in microcapsules, and technology developed at the MIT Media Lab, which indicates E Ink's material). The same is true for the first 30 or so links returned for the query "electronic ink", if you weed out the totally unrelated hits for things like graphics design services and digital signature software. A query on "electronic paper" returned similar items, but also included references to Fujitsu's cholesteric LCD technology and Hitachi/Bridgestone's air-gap particle system.

Second, I searched the on-line publication database at the Society for Information Display (http://sid.aip.org). Running queries on "e-ink" and "electronic ink" returned only references relating to the products developed by E Ink Corporation. A query for "electronic paper" returned articles on a wide variety of different display effects, as well as a review article by Makoto Omodani of Tokai University, a leading expert on electronic paper. In his article, he indicates that the term "electronic paper" is used because it is evocative of the properties required of such a display (thin, ultra-low power, paper-like appearance).

Finally, looking at my back-catalog of program information from Society for Information Display conferences, SID has standardized on "electronic paper" as the term for this kind of display, never using "electronic ink" or "e-ink".

My conclusion from reading through a large number of citations is that the term "electronic ink" appears to have derived primarily from its use by E Ink Corporation. The term "electronic paper" is much more generally applied to a wide variety of display technologies produced by different manufacturers, and is widely accepted by display industry professionals. Rwzehner 22:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm convinced. Shall we remove the term "electronic ink" too, or is that still used a fair bit despite the standardisation?  -- Run!  08:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

References need fixing

The references seem to be messed up in this article. Footnote 1 doesn't have any text (only "backlinks") and 5 of the refs aren't associated with any statements in the article. Someone familiar with the sources should fix this. - dcljr (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Iliad

The article should be updated to mention that the iliad has been released.

__________________________________________________________________

I would like to use Ebook readers or Electronic Paper Ebooks as a means to distribute my writings, and I would like to provide my input into the development of this wonderful product.

I am hoping companies that are producing Ebook Readers will provide a platform or operating system that can launch an executable load module, or ".EXE" filetype.

Or, if we could purchase a supported Ebook generating program, and copy our Ebooks from a computer to a Ebook Readers.

By the way, I love the size and design of this Ebook Reader. If this viewing area will be the standard size, the other Ebook generating programs could easily comply. There is a hugh potential world wide market for personal and business use of these devices.

Everyone will want to write books and give them to their friends as seasonal gifts, (e.g. Valentine's Day, Christmas, Birthday's, Holidays, any reason what so ever!) Companies could elimate paper and have employees download company Ebooks!

Thank you for listening,

- Chaplain Winston Tobias Muldrew, BBS C.P.E. www.chaplainwinston.com

Organzing Applications and Removing Advertising

The applications section was prety cluttered and it looked like a few of the products mentioned, specifically the iLiad, was trying to advertise itself here. I reorganized the data in a bulleted list format and removed product data that wasn't related to electronic paper. --Tamsco 13:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I initially undid all those changes since it made the E Ink advertising-sounding stuff more prominent, but after reviewing it closer you're right that putting it in a list reduces the marketing-speak of the text. I reverted myself and then did some minor copyediting on the list. The leading paragraph about E Ink and Fujitsu needs some attention still, but that can wait. Thanks for tackling that! — Saxifrage ✎ 17:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Are these the right patents?

A quick search revealed the following patents:

• 5866284
• 6045955

--Dispenser 09:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

e paper's application

can't the technology used in monitors,pdas & cell phones to make them cheaper? can touch screen|multi touch -technologies be associated with this?

It could and in fact is being used in certain cellphone and PDA-like devices. The major limitation with most electronic paper technologies right now though is that their refresh rates aren't nearly fast enough for multimedia, which is a popular application for all three of the forementioned electronics. 66.82.9.99 (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Applications

I just did a re-work of the applications section, it was a giant mess somewhere between an essay and a spam page. I'm still unhappy with the number of external links on the page to specific products, what do regular contributors think? WLU 01:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

IMHO the german Wikipedia has a better picture of the Motorola Motofone F3, "Motofone f3.jpg". --84.60.244.99 (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Wafer-Thin Color Displays / Electronic paper display

Hi. I started an article entitled “Wafer-Thin Color Displays”. The idea was to document TV-like wafer thin displays. I have since realised I am basically talking about a specialisation of Electronic paper. However, when talking about wafer-thin TV-like displays, I believe “electronic paper” is somewhat misleading. Should I continue with the article? Or should it be renamed/redirected? Steve

If there is enough material to create an entire page, then a separate page is workable. If it could easily be merged into this article in an existing or newly created section, you'd be better off putting it here. As part of an established article, it'd get more traffic and attention, not to mention more wikilinks in other pages. See how far you can expand it, and if you find by the time you've exhausted all sources and information it's still a stub, think about redirecting and merging. From my quick look through, I'd say they look pretty different (though I'm a noob to the tech so am far from an expert). Electronic paper is meant to be a paper substitute, but WTCDs are meant to be monitor-type displays, which seems enough of a distinction to have separate articles. Also, if industry/sources separates them, it is WP:OR to say they are the same thing. I'm going to be doing some work on the page by the way. WLU 12:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have decided to rename the page "Electronic paper display" and I believe there is enough material out there to support it. I am hoping to get a chance tonight to do some more on it. Cheers Takenthesmeg 00:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ink-less Printing, Unrelated?

The section "Ink-less Printing" seems unrelated to me. Simply put, electronic paper is a critical component of a refreshable electronic display, while Ink-less Printing is heat-based and is just used for laying down a single-use pattern. I see little reason for the comparison, and wish to cull it from the electronic paper article. Austin Spafford 02:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Electrophoretic section

Unless I'm missing something, the Electrophoretic section describes almost the same process three times with varying levels of quality. Can we get rid of two of the descriptions of how this works and generally clean it up? N Vale (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion page is messy

Also, can we clean up this page? There are a number of sections (i.e. the section titled `Wow' and the untitled section by Chaplain Winston Tobias Muldrew) that have only comments about how exciting electronic paper is without any relevance to the article. N Vale (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Contrast ratio

I have only a single device (an iRex iLiad, whose Wikipedia page says it uses E Ink), but one of the most notable things about the display for me is the poor contrast, certainly worse than a year-old newspaper on my desk, and for that matter worse than a 220-year old book on my desk.

I've accordingly weakened the previous claim of “similar contrast ratio to newspaper”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjrm (talk • contribs) 05:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

A [article] claims that the upcoming successor to the iLiad (iRex Digitial Reader 1000 & 1000S) has “slightly brighter whites and darker blacks than the last generation of E-Ink devices” (presumably including the iLiad). Pjrm (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Further Reading New Scientist Links 404

The links for the "New Scientist" articles in the further reading section are all outdated. The articles still exist, but it seems like you need a subscription to the website to view them. The links should therefore be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.21.79.105 (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed Speculative information

I removed the following speculative information from the article. Yes, these applications have certainly been suggested, many times, and I added an Other applications section to mention them. But, these sections go into a great deal of detail about what might happen in the future. Sans references, they don't belong.

Digital Photo Frame

• In the future as electronic paper displays improve and full high quality color is possible, the technology may become incorporated in digital photo frame products. Existing digital photo frames require a constant power supply and have a limited viewing angle and physical thickness that is inferior to a conventional photograph. A digital photo frame using e-paper technology would address all of these shortcomings. A well-designed digital photo frame using an electronic ink display could, in theory, run for months or years from batteries, because such a device would require electricity only to briefly boot up to connect to a USB memory stick (or other storage device) and change the display before powering off all components.

Information Board

• An extension of the Digital Photo Frame concept is to display other media such as webpages or other documents. Examples include web pages such as news sites or status pages such as stocks, timetables or other information. The current days weather forecast would be a good example for installation in a domestic location such as near the front door in a hall way. Such a device could also be connected wirelessly allowing remote or automatic updates without human intervention. Such a product will have a low physical and energy footprint compared to older technology. At present (Q4 2009) no such product is available on the market despite the technology already existing to manufacture it. Unlike digital photo frames, digital information boards could run acceptably with greyscale epaper.

Applications

The applications section contained this line: "The ideal electronic paper product is a digital book that can typeset itself and could be read as if it were made of regular paper, yet programmed to download and display the text from any book. Another possible use is in the distribution of an electronic version of a daily paper." Which is obviously original research, unverifiable, biased, and any number of other ways unencyclopedic. I took the liberty of removing it. --24.168.240.243 (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Technologies

Electrophoretic

Sixth paragraph.

"Other than E-Ink's 0.04mm-diameter micro-capsule structure, Sipix's is 0.15mm-diameter microcup."

This is a sentence fragment, and not a good one, in that it's intended completion is not obvious.

"... Sipix's is 0.15mm-diameter microcup provides the best contrast ratio available"?

"... Sipix's is 0.15mm-diameter microcup has the highest resolution on the market"?

"... Sipix's is 0.15mm-diameter microcup is the suckiest, most overpriced product imaginable"?

Someone who knows what this was supposed to say needs to complete it, or it needs to be removed. Joe Avins (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was No consensus... Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

---

I propose that E ink be merged into Electronic Paper. They are technically two sides of the same coin. There's a significant content overlap and not a clear distinction between which topics would be related to one article versus the other. Greg Comlish (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it is clear that E ink is only one technology for electronic paper. IMO I can't see any reason to merge articles. --DixonD (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with DixonD, they are two completely different technologies and both have their own concepts, ideas etc. I don't see why you should merge articles which are not the same. Such as these two. Bencarroll (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2011 (GMT)

E-Ink is a new and fascinating technology which needs more attention and should have a separated space here and I personally do not need any reason for such merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.138.141.243 (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree e-ink more or less has become a generic term for electronic paper. Electronic paper is more detailed, while there is little to be said about E ink specifically. --Bxj (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think there are a lot of misunderstand about e-ink. E ink is part of the bigger group what contain all of e-ink technologies. Infect the Gyricon is e-ink too. Maybe in this article should be make clear this different.

Here is a useful link: http://thefutureofthings.com/articles/1000/the-future-of-electronic-paper=.html

"... E-paper comprises two different parts: the first is electronic ink, sometimes referred to as the "frontplane"; and the second is the electronics required to generate the pattern of text and images on the e-ink page, called the "backplane".

Over the years, a number of methods for creating e-ink have been developed. The Gyricon e-ink developed in the 70s by Nick Sheridon at Xerox is based on a thin sheet of flexible plastic containing a layer of tiny plastic beads, each encapsulated in a little pocket of oil and thus able to freely rotate within the plastic sheet. Each hemisphere of a bead has a different color and a different electrical charge. When an electric field is applied by the backplane, the beads rotate, creating a two-colored pattern. This method of creating e-ink was dubbed bichromal frontplane. Originally, bichromal frontplane had a number of limitations, including relatively low brightness and resolution and a lack of color. Although these issues are still being tackled, other forms of e-ink, with improved properties compared to the original Gyricon, have been developed over the years.

One such technology is electrophoretic frontplane, developed by the E Ink Corporation. Electrophoretic frontplane consists of millions of tiny microcapsules..." --Szente (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Refresh rates breakthrough

The disadvantage section mentions low refresh rates.

With the recent video playback demonstration by Bookeen, probably that should be changed?

Reference: short description and even shorter video

Another one: An engaged article

Klimov (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Glass breakage

From one side the e-Ink displays are very often praised for their flexibility. On the other side there are plenty of complaints about e-Ink Book Readers' glass breakage. The obvious question is: why they do not make e-readers with flexible displays? BPK (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Simple schematics

Hi, I made two new electronic paper schematic diagrams in a simple style:

‘liquid polymer’ version

‘electrophoretic display’ version

Have a good week-end, Nclm (talk)

About Bistability

This article should take care of what is a bistable "ePaper" type screen, and what isn't.
For example the Sharp Memory LCD are NOT bistable screen as when it loose power the screen will blank, as the for the Mirasol screen or any standard LCD.
In the list of bistable product:

• Plastic Logic: They are using eInk electrophoretic film for their screen production, it not a product by itself
• Kent Displays: they are real bistable epaper screen
• Nemoptic: they are defunct and they never release any production screen as they weren't able to stabilise the fabrication process.
• TRED: never eared of them and the website is dead, it should be removed
• Sharp Memory LCD: they are NOT bistable screen, only lower power LCDs

display manufacturers

I would like to add a new manufacturer: Etulipa. This is a start-up in the Netherlands. They develop reflective displays for outdoor use, based on electrowettingCarlaverweerden (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is specifically [[[WP:NOT|not]] a place to make lists of manufacturers. - MrOllie (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Electronic paper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sipix.com/applications/pricinglabels.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100315092211/http://www.ntera.com/ to http://www.ntera.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100325033542/http://www.seikowatches.com/baselworld/2010/precon/0402-epd.html to http://www.seikowatches.com/baselworld/2010/precon/0402-epd.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140525200255/http://www.sharpmemorylcd.com/aboutmemorylcd.html to http://www.sharpmemorylcd.com/aboutmemorylcd.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Electronic paper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091207154450/http://www.avesodisplays.com/ to http://www.avesodisplays.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Intro section dates

The introduction section to this discusses the state of the technology with explicit mention to 2008, with 2008 being considered recent. Should this be improved to either be more up to date or less specific? The particular sentence in question is:

"The contrast ratio in electronic displays available as of 2008 approaches newspaper, and newly (2008) developed displays are slightly better."

Felix.gif (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding ZBD LCD Technology

Hello, I would like to propose adding the below information about ZBD LCD technology to this article. It is a type of electronic paper display that is not yet included. The company I work for, New Vision Display, recently purchased the technology from Displaydata and we believe it would be useful for people to learn about this other electronic paper technology within this article. Below is the text we would like to propose on the subject. We would like to propose the placement of the below content after the section on "Microencapsulated electrophoretic display" and prior to the section on "Electrowetting". Thank you in advance for your time, consideration and feedback.

ZBD LCD

In contrast to other LCDs, the ZBD LCD technology can be classed as an electronic paper display since it can be electrically written once and then maintain an image without degradation for many years with zero applied power. This technology is based on using a sub-micron grating to stabilize two different orientations of an adjacent nematic liquid crystal. These states lead to either high or low pretilt in the LC close to the surface and can thus allow two optically distinct states when the grating is used as one of the surfaces in an LC cell.

File:http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Effects of sub-micron grading on LC states.png

The bend and splay distortion of the LC material close to the grating leads to regions with macroscopic flexoelectric polarisation. It is possible to use the polarity of applied electrical pulses to couple to the flexoelectricity and thus select either the high or low tilt state. The technology is manufactured by replication of an inverse structure (on a polymer foil) into a UV curing resin coated onto the LCD glass. After UV cure and separation, the LCD glass is assembled as a standard LCD and filled with standard LC material.

File:http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Zbd module.png

The ZBD LCD offers ‘infinite multiplexibilty’. There is a distinct threshold between the two states which allows passive matrix addressing of many thousands of lines. This contrasts with many other low power display modes that require a TFT backplane (e.g. Eink EPD, Clearink EPD, electrowetting, electrochromic, phase change).

The technology has been widely deployed in low power electronic shelf edge label products. More recently, this technology has (like other reflective LCDs) incorporated novel light shaping diffusers in order to create a more lambertian ‘paperlike’ reflectivity similar to electrophoretic displays. Since 2019, the ZBD LCD technology has been exclusively owned, manufactured and marketed by New Vision Display.

Signed, Aubree Abernethy, Product Marketing Manager for New Vision DisplayAubsabs222 (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Aubsabs222, I often implement suggestions by COI editors who follow the rules and make suggestions on the talk pages, but the above reads too much like a press release or advertisement. Could you please take a shot at making your suggested changes look like an encyclopedia?

Samples of what I am talking about:

• Promotional: "Since 2019, the ZBD LCD technology has been exclusively owned, manufactured and marketed by New Vision Display"
• Encyclopedic: "In 2019 New Vision Display introduced the ZBD LCD..."

• Promotional: "The ZBD LCD offers ‘infinite multiplexibilty’. There is a distinct threshold between the two states which allows passive matrix addressing of many thousands of lines. This contrasts with many other low power display modes that require a TFT backplane (e.g. Eink EPD, Clearink EPD, electrowetting, electrochromic, phase change)."
• Encyclopedic: "...which uses passive matrix addressing".

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Suggested Changes From E Ink

I work for E Ink Corporation, the largest electronic ink manufacturer. This page sometimes refers to our patented/trademarked "E Ink" when it meant to refer to "electronic ink" generically, and vice versa. It also has a whole section for "Disadvantages" cited to blogs and E Ink's own website.

I put together some suggested improvements here that would make it more clear to readers when the page is referring E Ink's technology, versus electronic paper more generally, among other improvements. Thank you in advance for taking a look and considering the suggested edits. CDaignault1 (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

This was discussed previously at Talk:Electronic paper#"E Ink" and "e-ink". I found multiple places where "E-ink" was used as a generic term for electronic ink, I am not convinced that the trademarked "E-ink" or "e-ink" has become a generic term for all electronic ink displays.

I also removed an unsourced criticism section. Even if the differences are true, we don't list "doesn't stay on when you remove power" as a disadvantage of passive LCDs or list "cannot be left on continuously without draining the battery" as a disadvantage of backlit LCD displays. Differences are not the same as disadvantages.

I need to do some research on the other suggestions.

CDaignault1, maybe you can do some legwork for me. Is there a reason to prefer electronic paper over e-paper or electronic reader over e-reader? My fist guess is that e-reader is pretty much a generic term. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

(...Sound of crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 07:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Hi Guy – appreciate the question and I’m sorry for the delayed response, I didn’t realize you’d sent me a message.

Electronic paper and ePaper are generic terms holding the same meaning, are often used interchangeably. The same applies to electronic reader and eReader, though most in the industry happen to use eReader more frequently. These terms are most frequently written with a lowercase “e” followed by a capitalized second word – for example, ePaper and eReader – rather than with a dash or space between the two.

At E Ink, we tend to start by saying “electronic paper” and then “ePaper” in subsequent references. Usage is often based on sentence structure or flow, not technical meaning. But the industry as a whole is moving towards the term “digital paper” to replace “electronic paper,” stemming from a misconception that “electronic paper” must be plugged in. CDaignault1 (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Hope this answers your question! Feel free to reach out with any others that may arise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CDaignault1 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Update the lede?

I would like to learn about this technology. In high school in the early 80s, this was the stuff of fantasy, but they were thinking about it. But reading only the lede, it appears as though 2008 was the year when this technology peaked. Everything is new as of 2008. I know nothing about this subject, which is why I'm here. Can anyone who knows about this topic have a look and give the lede an overhaul that reflects the technology today? Is it dead? (I hope not!) Thanks! Dcs002 (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

i agree. this document is now 12 years out of date with its info. i can say the tech is not dead and there has been quite a body of new progress made with the concept of non light emitting screen tech. a lot of effort is being placed on refresh rates and color. i do not have the articles on me right now, i simply am advocating that this page be updated. 69.254.201.70 (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggested Changes From E Ink

Actually, I, with no connection to E Ink Corporation, added the Edit request tag (above), so that this gets looked at in a timely fashion. David notMD (talk) 07:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

My name is Brandon and I work for E Ink Corporation. I would like to request the following changes to the electronic paper page:

1. Remove "e-Ink" from the list of "also known as" synonyms in the first sentence. This was [discussed] with @Guy Macon: who removed E Ink a while back. E Ink is a trademarked/branded term for E Ink Corporation's technology, not a synonym for electronic paper generally.

2. Remove the [section], which focuses exclusively on the history of E Ink Corporation (or merge the section with [E Ink Company History]). There is a separate page on us.

3. I've prepared several suggested updates to the [Electrophoretic Display section] here, most importantly of which is to provide more content to bring the section up-to-date. It currently focuses exclusively on "early versions" from the '90s and modern electrophoretic displays are done differently.

4. Two instances of E Ink trademark misuses (under the Microencapsulated Electrophoretic Display section and the Electronic Tags section).

Brandon E Ink (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Reply 7-SEP-2023

1. The links you've provided to Google docs are not useful for making suggestions here. The proposed text needs to be proposed here on the talk page.
2. Discussions that you've had with other editors regarding removal of "also known as synonyms" need to be discussed with those editors outside of the COI edit request process. If those changes were made, and then reverted by another editor, that means the changes are controversial, and need to be discussed outside of the COI edit request review process.. Regards,  Spintendo  23:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Reflect LCDs

According to °Unlike conventional flat panel displays that emit light, an electronic paper display reflects ambient light, like paper° reflective LCDs should be included. That is because of my edit. ~~~~ mcg (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Transflective liquid-crystal display already has its own article. Unlike paper, the technology has significantly worse viewing angle, and consumes infinitely more power when displaying static content. Hansen033 (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)