After waiting months and months for my new Pebble Time 2 it finally arrived today and I eagerly went about setting up my favourite watch face from my previous Pebble watch only to discover I can beardly read it!
This is what my old Pebble looked like (after years of use mind you):
*** Had to remove as only one image is allowed ***
For comparison, this is what my regular watch looks like in the same lighting conditions:
*** Had to remove as only one image is allowed ***
As it is I can hardly even read notifications unless I hold my wrist right up to my face. I certainly don’t remember this being the case with my old pebble.
Is this normal?
I must say I’m finding it very disappointing.
Hi @Slartibartfast - the display on the PT2 is exactly the same as the Pebble Time, except larger! It uses the exact same e-paper technology, made by the same display manufacturer. It’s a reflective display, which means that if the backlight is off, it does not emit light. Just like with Pebble Time, sometimes you need to tilt it slightly so that a nearby light source reflects at the right angle to best read the display. I as I can see in your photo of Pebble Time Steel, you’ve tilted it slightly off center to catch the light, whereas the photo of PT2 is head on (also it looks like the lighting has changed, given how your fingers look much crisper in the PTS photo). That shows how much lighting matters with an e-paper display!
Hey Eric — has ePaper tech not advanced since the OG Pebble Time? Trevor mentioned the display being dim. It was a head scratcher for me as to why go to the parts bin when the screen size is different.
Here’s mine with backlight off, in a room lit only by my laptop screen.
I’m not sure if if comes across very well in the GIF but the face is completely legible as long as I angle it appropriately.
It could be that to achieve best reflectivity you will need to view your new watch at a different angle from what you are used to with your the old one.
Yes, the photos were taken years apart from each other, so of course the situations are different. And I’m not saying the screen is completely unreadable, I’m saying it seems surprisingly difficult to read, something I do not remember being an issue with the previous watch.
Anyway, I’m asking if this is normal because it’s not what I remember, and I guess you’re telling me it is normal and I’m just misremembering the previous watch –which is disappointing:
The traditional watch is clearly legible in this light whereas you really need to squint to make out the eInk display at arms length, despite the numbers being almost 10x the size.
And I’m not saying it’s completely unusable, I’m just saying its disappointing, and I’m probably going to continue using my traditional watch as this screen is just too damn hard to read.
Note I specifically got this watch because of the transflective (ePaper) display. I very much dislike the “black square” look of most smartwatches and ordered this watch as I thought it was different.
Scrutinising the photo of the last watch, it’s possible the photo of the last watch was taken while it’s “backlight” was on, making it look more vibrant than it really was. That photo was taken 7 years ago () and I really can’t remember. However I search the archives and found another that was notably less vibrant:
I am next to large windows here, and the lighting is generally “good” but it is an overcast day so it’s possibly not performing at it’s best. Disappointing though, as I would consider this to be a verry normal use case (if not actually a good case) and it clearly seems to be under-performing in these conditions.
There were tv ads in the 1970s—I forget which watch brand—that involved somebody dazzling someone else by the sun reflecting off their watchface into the other person’s eyes.
To get the clearest/brightest view of your pebble screen you should probably be aiming to dazzle yourself.
Instead of viewing the watchface square-on, experiment with a slightly different angle; turning your wrist slightly may catch the available light better (as my GIF attempts, poorly, to demonstrate).
Yeah, I understand what you’re saying and what your GIF is demonstrating. As I say, I can read it, the issue is the effort it takes, and just how muted it is compared to what I expected.
That’s basically correct! Small improvements but generally the same as it was 10 years ago. In fact, the situation is even worse that used to be two manufacturers of memory LCD displays(the type of e-paper used in Pebble watches), JDI and Sharp and there’s only Sharp.
Now that we have double tap to enable backlight, I don’t see a problem with poor indoor lighting. Much easier than the button press or the comical wrist flick!
) and I really can’t remember. However I search the archives and found another that was notably less vibrant:
