Thread: Hardware Review: Inelmatic XF700 Industrial Sunlight Readable Touch Screen Monitor

Originally Posted by hailrazer

Why do I think that? Simple , look at the pic. You can clearly see the hand holding the camera. This is a mirror like reflection. It is typical of a non optically bonded touchscreen with no AG.

Looking at this image it appears that the XF700 is the clear winner under direct sun. The right side of the screen shows virtually no sun reflection.

The monitor on the left (not sure what it is) is still readable but still shows a great deal of reflection with the rest of the surface looking much more "milky" than the other screen.

What I don't understand is why the low left portion of the XF700 is washed out completely (the area below and to the left of the hand).

The fact that the hand is more visible in the XF700 is less of a concern because the rest of the screen shows none of the milkiness of the other screen. When the sun hits the screen directly I think this is the preferable compromise.


I guess the other question I have would be if the MoCoSo transflective and optically bonded screen would show the same level of clarity and lack of milkiness as the right side of that XF700 under direct light conditions?

sebberry, the washed out at the left-bottom is just the picture itself, here the one they used:

.
About the small reflection on the bottom-left, all cameras has a non-linear response, with the purpose of increase the dynamic range of the CMOS sensors.
The result is that the camera will "amplify" the small details and attenuate the most bright. So the reflection on the earlier picture was not detectable by naked human eye.. that's why Sonicxtacy02 said that reflection was nowhere when he was testing it. Furthermore, the reflection in the other screen was surely attenuated, so the photo not accurate.

Originally Posted by sebberry

I don't know a lot about the technical details of screens but here are a couple of observations I did with my laptops:

a) Acer laptop with a glossy screen - Reflects lights in the room, reflects me, can be read when the sun hits it outdoors.

b) Compaq laptop with a matte screen - No indoor reflections, completely washed out and un-readable outdoors.

Now, I'm not sure if one of those is considered an "Anti Glare" (AG) screen, but neither are transflective from what I can tell.

The milky look of the touch screen in the car is similar to my Compaq screen. Total wash out when anything reflects off of it but also becomes a dangerous 5,000 nit (sarcastic estimation) reflector when the sun hits it.

You are right, a glossy surface has better result in outdoors and better if it's direct sunlight. However, if the glossy surface is untreated the reflection is 5%, pretty high. A rouge estimation, under a sunlight light of 50000nits, you are getting 2500nits of reflected light, it will burn your eyes...
If you use a resistive touch screen, the total reflection is over 20%, plus the typical AG that almost makers use, it becomes a diffuse mirror, impossible to see anything, even with 1500nits TFT.

Originally Posted by sebberry

Since the problems in my care are mostly caused by the sun hitting the screen, which monitor discussed in this thread would be a better choice?

Will the MoCoSo screen show any loss of clarity and contrast, or look slightly hazy when the direct sun hits it? Will the XF700 wash out and turn purple?

Under direct sunlight, no doubt, treated glossy finish.
The screen becomes a bit purple too, it's because the surface treatment, but not hazy or washed out at all, because it has virtually no haze, you can check the pictures bellow.


There are some more photos, we don't have mocoso screen to compare, but in the coming days we will build one sample with a similar AG finish.

Under direct sunlight on the front:

Under direct sunlight, from the top-rear and with a "white" bright object in front, simulating a condition in the car, when the co-driver has a white t-shirt and the sun comes from the front windshield:

Another more, from mp3car store:

http://store.mp3car.com/v/vspfiles/a...s/img_1247.jpg

I think the "washed out" area below the reflection of his hand in the XF700 is just part of the image on the screen, assuming you mean the whiter area under the floating Windows logo?


I too, am interested in the performance of the Mo-Co-So screen, as I'm currently looking at this Xenarc 702TSV, or this Revo-sys XRS, which both claim to be "daylight readable."

I don't like that the mocoso screen seen here: http://www.mo-co-so.com/Optically-Bo...-701-tfe-3.htm is A) a lilliput, and B) only 4 wire resistive, but at least there appear to be Mo-co-so people on this forum that defend their products. I've owned a Xenarc before (traded it to the bybyte guy in exchange for a custom case and a lilliput screen, back before they were a company) and was really happy with the quality. The lilliput I don't like as much. The revo-sys I have no idea about, but they're decently priced and look good on their site.

Paging theonlykid to here to see if they offer any other touchscreen options or screens on their units. Oh, and also if you ever work with the bybyte people to sell units pre-disassembled and mounted into their LCD brackets?

EDIT: Added links to the things I'm looking at.

You're right. I hadn't seen that Windows wallpaper for a while. That white bit is in fact part of the image.

just to confirm what they've been saying the lower left portion of the screen that appears washed out is just the windows background i used in testing.

[QUOTE=Samse;1394990]
Under direct sunlight on the front:


That does indeed look pretty good. Can you confirm what sort of touch-screen is on there? Any chance a capacitive touch screen will be available with the optical enhancements?

One final request if I may - are you able to angle the screen so that when you take a photo I can see the ball of fire that is the sun directly in the middle of the screen?

It's one thing to have it fully lit by the sun but I unfortunately have to deal with the sun itself bouncing off the screen right into my eye. In that scenario I am less worried about reading the screen and more concerned about it not blinding me. If I need the navi I can close the shade on the sunroof but I don't want to have to keep it closed.

You know when you are driving without sunglasses just after heavy rain and the sun bounces off the road causing pain and making it impossible to see? That's what I am dealing with with the angles of my screen and big sunroof


Samse, do you work for Inelmatic?

Senator
I can't say to much about the new options we have coming we are currently working with other models of monitors that are not Lilliput and are not 4 wire resistive touch. I am willing to say regarding new Lilliput options is that we just received our modified and bonded panels for the 669 yesterday afternoon. We will be offering an upgraded 450 nit panel (stock is 250), a transflective 669, and an optically bonded version. They will be added to the site as soon as we get the pics ready to go.
What you have to remember is that a LCD panel can be daylight readable but when you add a touch screen it changes everything by adding another glare surface and creating an air gap. Monitors, especially transflective, are all about science. All of the parts have to work in harmony or it doesn't work right. The air gap that you create by adding a touch panel to a LCD panel is similar to a double pained window. That gap traps light and heat. Because the sun is 10,000+ nits and you create an air gap when you add a touch panel you will ALWAYS get some washout/loss of contrast even with a Transflective/Daylight Readable/Sunlight Readable screens if they are not bonded.
They say a picture is worth 1000 words so here you go
http://www.mo-co-so.com/v/~photos/Mo...ts/montage.jpg
These monitor pics were all taken in the same light. The sun is the brightest on the upper right side of the screen. On the bottom middle pic you can see some of the washout. On the bottom right pic you can see that that washout was eliminated by the bonding process.
For people with the most demanding applications (convertibles, sun roofs, light colored interiors, ect) I would only suggest using a bonded solution. There are quite a few members of this forum that I know of that have our bonded screen and there is a review of it here as well with other pics of the performance of the bonded monitor in the worst possible lighting. In other less demanding applications a standard transflective monitor will work fine.
We have always carried the Lilliput monitors in the Bybyte frames. Here is a link to the page.
http://www.mo-co-so.com/category-s/26.htm

Seberry
Of the 2 pics you posted, post #22, the XF700 screen is the clear winner, but in my opinion there is still way to much glare for a high end product. You can see the persons hand on the screen clear as day. The pic on the left has a cheap touch panel which is why it looks milky. The XF700 has better AG/AR coatings on it which is why it is clearer. It is the quality of the touch panel that determines the % of light transmission and clarity of the picture. A 4 wire resistive panel can be just as clear as a capacitive panel. We have even sampled some 99% clear 4 wire panels.
Again no matter what with a non bonded panel you will always have some reflection and washout/loss of contrast. Below is a link that shows you the difference. As you can see the stock panel will only reflect a maximum of 4% of the light , but look at how bad the picture quality is. It might not sound like much but as you can see a 1-2% reflection change makes all of the difference in the world.
http://www.mo-co-so.com/v/~photos/Op...percentage.jpg
Our monitors are crystal clear and have no milky appearance.
Also remember when you are buying a Transflective monitor that Transflective is a generic term that means the monitor has been modified to be easier to read in sunlight. There is no specific standard that a monitor or company has to adhere to call a monitor Transflective/Sunlight/Daylight Readable. Bonding is a very expensive process that requires a lot of pre testing of the hardware to make sure it is defect free. If a monitor is bonded the company selling it will specifically mention it. If the answer is we don’t know or we don’t discuss the specific technology in our products the answer is no! The secret is what bonding material you are using, what you are bonding and how you are curing the bond, not if it is bonded or not.
Also good call on asking Samse for pics of different angles. Having taken hundreds of pictures of these monitors I can tell you it appears they are trying to use deceptive angles and or photo shop to boost the look of the monitor. The top pic as you noted is taken from a side angle and the comparison pic just doesnt look right. Its like they took the glare off the entire picture. If those housings were in direct sunlight they would appear much lighter in color. Just look at the pic above it. The case looks almost grey from the light hitting it. You will notice in the 2 links I posted all of the pics were taken straight ahead, not at an odd angle to minimize the glare. The sunlight hitting the pics is coming in through an untinted window from right to left to simulate what you would have in a car.

Originally Posted by theonlykid

Senator
I can't say to much about the new options we have coming we are currently working with other models of monitors that are not Lilliput and are not 4 wire resistive touch. I am willing to say regarding new Lilliput options is that we just received our modified and bonded panels for the 669 yesterday afternoon. We will be offering an upgraded 450 nit panel (stock is 250), a transflective 669, and an optically bonded version. They will be added to the site as soon as we get the pics ready to go.

I will definitely buy a 669 with an optically-bonded panel on a daylight-friendlier screen. Are these new units 4 wire resistive, or will there be touchscreen options for those as well?

I'm interested in seeing what the other models that aren't lilliputs are, though.

Originally Posted by theonlykid

Seberry
Of the 2 pics you posted, post #22, the XF700 screen is the clear winner, but in my opinion there is still way to much glare for a high end product. You can see the persons hand on the screen clear as day. The pic on the left has a cheap touch panel which is why it looks milky. The XF700 has better AG/AR coatings on it which is why it is clearer. It is the quality of the touch panel that determines the % of light transmission and clarity of the picture. A 4 wire resistive panel can be just as clear as a capacitive panel. We have even sampled some 99% clear 4 wire panels.
Again no matter what with a non bonded panel you will always have some reflection and washout/loss of contrast. Below is a link that shows you the difference. As you can see the stock panel will only reflect a maximum of 4% of the light , but look at how bad the picture quality is. It might not sound like much but as you can see a 1-2% reflection change makes all of the difference in the world.
http://www.mo-co-so.com/v/~photos/Op...percentage.jpg
Our monitors are crystal clear and have no milky appearance.
Also remember when you are buying a Transflective monitor that Transflective is a generic term that means the monitor has been modified to be easier to read in sunlight. There is no specific standard that a monitor or company has to adhere to call a monitor Transflective/Sunlight/Daylight Readable. Bonding is a very expensive process that requires a lot of pre testing of the hardware to make sure it is defect free. If a monitor is bonded the company selling it will specifically mention it. If the answer is we don’t know or we don’t discuss the specific technology in our products the answer is no! The secret is what bonding material you are using, what you are bonding and how you are curing the bond, not if it is bonded or not.
Also good call on asking Samse for pics of different angles. Having taken hundreds of pictures of these monitors I can tell you it appears they are trying to use deceptive angles and or photo shop to boost the look of the monitor. The top pic as you noted is taken from a side angle and the comparison pic just doesnt look right. Its like they took the glare off the entire picture. If those housings were in direct sunlight they would appear much lighter in color. Just look at the pic above it. The case looks almost grey from the light hitting it. You will notice in the 2 links I posted all of the pics were taken straight ahead, not at an odd angle to minimize the glare. The sunlight hitting the pics is coming in through an untinted window from right to left to simulate what you would have in a car.

I do have to say that the XF700 screen appears to have less of a milky haze from the touch panel under direct light than the bonded and coated MoCoSo screen. In fact, I don't see any haze at all.

My primary concern is not objects being seen reflected in the screen, but the direct sun itself.

The little graphics showing reflection percentage are perfect - imagine my eyes are right where the arrows are pointing. Now you can see why it isn't simply general ambient light that I am worried about, but the sun itself. From the photos posted, the XF700 screen seems to be the better choice, despite object reflection. But this is why I want more pictures.