Colorado backlight settings

[+g-o-cashers]

Ever since version 2.3 I've seen some weird behavior with the backlight settings. In 2.3 a feature was added to turn the backlight on to a default level on the second press of the power button, something many had been asking for.

 

Today during the day I turned the Colorado on and hit the power button again but the backlight didn't come on (I've noticed this several times). Just after sunset I noticed it was working again. I wonder if the backlight only comes on at "night". Can anyone else run a test before (and after sunset).

 

GO$Rs

[+apersson850]

You can set the backlight to glow at any time, by turning the wheel. But the automatic illumination, which comes on when running on external power, is only effective when the sun is down.

Probably the same with the dual press, even if I haven't tried that. Still, the sun is down most of the time here...

[+Parabola]

Ever since version 2.3 I've seen some weird behavior with the backlight settings. In 2.3 a feature was added to turn the backlight on to a default level on the second press of the power button, something many had been asking for.

 

Today during the day I turned the Colorado on and hit the power button again but the backlight didn't come on (I've noticed this several times). Just after sunset I noticed it was working again. I wonder if the backlight only comes on at "night". Can anyone else run a test before (and after sunset).

 

GO$Rs

Last night every time I powered it up the backlight was on but very low. I'm guessing the default level. Today when I was using it, the backlight stayed off when I turned it on. I try at sunset to see if it does change.

 

It's kind of weird it not switching to night mode like the 60. I wonder if there's a setting I haven't seen yet.

[+apersson850]

No, there are no different color schemes like the 60 CSx, or the automotive units, support. But the backlight can be set very low, so it's not that much of a problem in a car, in the dark.

[+apersson850]

No, there are no different color schemes like the 60 CSx, or the automotive units, support. But the backlight can be set very low, so it's not that much of a problem in a car, in the dark.

[yogazoo]

So is this the ONLY color Garmin unit (car nav or handheld) that doesn't have night mode? And if so, could it / should it be placed on the wish list or issue list?

 

I mean, Anders is right you could just turn down the brightness but it's MUCH sharper and easier to see at night when the roads are shown against a dark background. I mean, every other unit has this mode, why leave it out of their newest? If it was a feature that people didn't want, why have the option on all the other units?

Edited January 27, 2008 by yogazoo

[+Parabola]

There is no change in back lighting when sundown hits. I had the unit on and the back light was off and it was still of when I check it after the sundown.

[+Parabola]

No there is no change in backlighting at sundown. There doesn't seem to be a night mode. That's a feature that I will miss. It was so much easier on the eyes when the background when black at night sitting on the dash.

[yogazoo]

I think the part that changes after sundown is the default when the power button is pressed to get the status screen. During sun-up the backlight stays off when this happens. After sundown, the unit changes to slightly on (one click) when the power button is pressed. It seems to behave this way on mine anyway.

[Didjerrydo]

Yes, I have delt extensively with both, and find the Colorado's display hard to see in average room light. Maybe a little harder to see than the 60's. It's fine in sunlight, or indoors with the backlight on. Garmin must have to use some sort of polorization filter over the display to make it work properly. Apparently this is the problem that makes it so hard to see indoors. Looks like they could fix this issue.

[+g-o-cashers]

There is no change in back lighting when sundown hits. I had the unit on and the back light was off and it was still of when I check it after the sundown.

 

Sunrise/sunset only affects the backlight behavior related to the second press of the power button after you power on, not the level of the backlight when the GPS is running. According to Anders the backlight setting in USB drive mode is affected the same way.

 

Nothing to do with night mode either (Colorado doesn't have that).

 

And yes, I still think that screen brightness is the single biggest issue with the Colorado, particularly since it probably can't be fixed in software. It is much harder to see under almost all conditions than my 60cs.

 

GO$Rs

[+apersson850]

In general, displays with higher resolution are more difficult to see, without good backligth. The smaller the pixels are, the less they reflect.

[+Redwoods Mtn Biker]

In general, displays with higher resolution are more difficult to see, without good backligth. The smaller the pixels are, the less they reflect.

 

That would explain why the Magellan Triton display is underwhelming too.

 

But can you elaborate on your statement any? There are more pixels to reflect light, correct? Is there still less total reflective surface?

[+RRLover]

In general, displays with higher resolution are more difficult to see, without good backligth. The smaller the pixels are, the less they reflect.

 

That would explain why the Magellan Triton display is underwhelming too.

 

But can you elaborate on your statement any? There are more pixels to reflect light, correct? Is there still less total reflective surface?

The pixels work as a light valve, obscuring the light reflected from behind, or obscuring the light source

from behind.

With the backlight off, the denser pixel structure impedes the light transmission through the screen to

a greater extent than a lower resolution screen would, as with the backlight off the ambient light must pass

through the medium twice.

 

The triton has a touch screen, same applies, but add one more layer, equivalent of two layers if backlight is off.

 

Norm

Edited January 27, 2008 by RRLover

[Dosido]

Of the pictures I've seen of the backlight comparisons, they've all been of the map screen. And many of those who have complained about the Colorado being too dark were specifically speaking of the map screen. Is it possible that the DEM shading is part of the problem? Or does the lack of sufficient brightness affect all screens?

[+g-o-cashers]

Of the pictures I've seen of the backlight comparisons, they've all been of the map screen. And many of those who have complained about the Colorado being too dark were specifically speaking of the map screen. Is it possible that the DEM shading is part of the problem? Or does the lack of sufficient brightness affect all screens?

 

In general the screens on the Colorado are darker, this probably makes a not so good situation worse. It would be interesting to compare the two if the CO had a 60cs color scheme.

 

On the map page I'm not sure it is an issue of DEM shading because there isn't much of that in my area -- the problem is that the map is a medium green vs. the tan on a 60cs.

 

I was viewing a mostly white photo on the Colorado and without the backlight it still looked dim to me as compared to the 60cs. With the backlight it is really very nice. I think I'm just going to have to get over the fact that I'll be running the backlight all the time with the CO. Let's hope the NiMH battery handling improves.

 

GO$Rs

[+RRLover]

Of the pictures I've seen of the backlight comparisons, they've all been of the map screen. And many of those who have complained about the Colorado being too dark were specifically speaking of the map screen. Is it possible that the DEM shading is part of the problem? Or does the lack of sufficient brightness affect all screens?

 

In general the screens on the Colorado are darker, this probably makes a not so good situation worse. It would be interesting to compare the two if the CO had a 60cs color scheme.

 

On the map page I'm not sure it is an issue of DEM shading because there isn't much of that in my area -- the problem is that the map is a medium green vs. the tan on a 60cs.

 

I was viewing a mostly white photo on the Colorado and without the backlight it still looked dim to me as compared to the 60cs. With the backlight it is really very nice. I think I'm just going to have to get over the fact that I'll be running the backlight all the time with the CO. Let's hope the NiMH battery handling improves.

 

GO$Rs

With the denser pixel structure there are more 'boundaries' around the pixels, these are where the signal

passes to the individual PICture ELements these conduct the voltage to the pixels and are difficult to

make as transparent as the elements themselves. OLEDs would be cool, but that technology is still too

far off, and would require more current draw as they'd have to be lit to be seen at all, a totally active

display, but might draw less current for a given backlight level.

 

Norm

[zedex]

 

I was viewing a mostly white photo on the Colorado and without the backlight it still looked dim to me as compared to the 60cs. With the backlight it is really very nice. I think I'm just going to have to get over the fact that I'll be running the backlight all the time with the CO. Let's hope the NiMH battery handling improves.

 

GO$Rs

 

Just an observance. I am not a geocasher. I have no interest in it whatsoever. But i do like to read up on the gps forums to find out whats good and whats not in a gps. After the colorado came out i have noticed all the negative feedback on the unit and there is a plethora of excuses from Colorado owners.

I think the people that are buying the colorado are doing it for its looks and its coolness factor and its the latest sexiest gps. You only have to read a few hours to find out the Colorado is a genuine pile of crap. Yet alot of people will say they will just live with it and hope it gets better. If find this unbelievable. There are so many issues with the unit why wouldn't you just return it and get a known excellent model like the 60 or 76 series .

I think it would send a real message to garmin to return the colorados and wait for a working reliable unit.

Its too bad that some here on the site have sold their bullet proof 60s in excitement of the latest greatest only to find out its the lamest embarassment to come from Garmin.

If i had spent the cash on the colorado i would be SO PISSED OFF i would not only return it but would have a real conversation with Garmin"and it wouldn't be pleasant", that they could put on the market such a pile of rubish .

BTW i am a 60 series owner so i like Garmin. They also have pretty good customer service. But to blow $500 + on a unusable unit and sit back and hope for an improvement is mindboggling.

I just dont get it.

Rant off. Dont mind me.Carry on as you were.

[+Red90]

I think the people that are buying the colorado are doing it for its looks and its coolness factor and its the latest sexiest gps. You only have to read a few hours to find out the Colorado is a genuine pile of crap.

 

When ANY device comes out, there are ALWAYS a flood of complaints on the enthusiast forums. ALWAYS.... Go look back when any other device came out. It is always the same. It is never made the way everyone wants it to be built and people want to get there two cents in on how to make it the way they want it to be.

 

There is nothing "wrong" with the Colorado that does not make it a fine GPS. It is just not everything, everyone wants it to be. There are lots of great helpful threads on here that can help the programmers change thing to the way that the enthusiasts want.

[Andolin]

I think the people that are buying the colorado are doing it for its looks and its coolness factor and its the latest sexiest gps. You only have to read a few hours to find out the Colorado is a genuine pile of crap.

 

I might agree in part with your statement had you referred to the Triton series. I returned my Triton 2000 yesterday for the Colorado 400t, and the difference is night and day. This is the best GPS receiver I've ever owned, and I've had the 60cs, the 305 Forerunner, Bushnell's Onix 400 and that Triton 2000.

[+Redwoods Mtn Biker]

With the denser pixel structure there are more 'boundaries' around the pixels, these are where the signal

passes to the individual PICture ELements these conduct the voltage to the pixels and are difficult to

make as transparent as the elements themselves. OLEDs would be cool, but that technology is still too

far off, and would require more current draw as they'd have to be lit to be seen at all, a totally active

display, but might draw less current for a given backlight level.

Norm (and Anders too),

 

Thanks for your responses here, helping us understand the technology and the trade off between hi-res screens and brightness on transflective TFTs.