WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner
1 - 20 of 56 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
For the last few years I have exclusively worn watches with EL backlight due to superior backlight illumination that was far superior than a sad little bulb (previously) that has been updated to a sad little corner LED.

However, in the past several years, or a decade, Casio has started making watches that have backlit LCD displays they market as SUPER ILLUMINATOR "スーパーイルミネーター" on display these watches will have LT icon for auto light, as opposed to A.EL.
(Super Illuminator are also analog watches like PROTREK that have a UV/nonUV LED)

These new types of displays have two vastly superior things about them, one is the quality of the "picture" with far superior viewing angles, and MUCH sharper "text" with the background much whiter/brighter, and lettering much darker/blacker as opposed to EL displays that are greenish, grayish, cast deeper shadows because the glass is thicker etc.

Here is a side by side of two different watches one with EL and another with no backlight. This picture has been taken on the same table side by side under bright office lights and cropped together.
15809003


Second factor I find superior is that the LED backlight, while not perfectly even (there could be small hotspots in early models), they provide much brighter light. This is not a concern for when you check the time at night, but it is a factor for the negative displays when you try to view time in a darker lit room, the brighter LED (LT autolight) will make display more useful. Added smaller benefit is that LED backlit Casio/Gshocks often have soft lighting where the light coming on and off is gradual and not just On/Off like the case is with EL.

Here is an example of a LED backlit negative display from someone on Amazon:
15809012
15809044


Big drawback for the most LED backlit models is that most you cannot control the brightness, and normal non-negative displays will basically be a flashlight at night due to high brightness and will possibly blind the wearer (however, not necessarily, Casio used to use technology where positive displays had negative illumination where only text would light up, the technology they seem to have retired)

Another big drawback is Casio themselves -- Casio refuses to package this improved display technology with the existing models, instead Casio decided to only package it with the new module technology, which most of the time is Bluetooth connected modules. Alternatively Casio will package backlit display technology into a watch that has no solar power, there are multiple G-Shocks that have LED backlight, but no solar.

Huge drawback for Bluetooth models is the fact that Casio removes the analog trimmer capacitor, so you can never adjust the quartz rate. Due to Quartz aging the watch will constantly become faster, and trimmer capacitor adjustments are essential to keep the watches accurate, this is what has been offsetting G-Shock from all other quartz watches, the fact that you could adjust the rate, the feature often reserved to $1000+ watches (granted, those usually come with the temperature compensation).

With bluetooth you can synchronize the watch easier than with the Multiband 6, but you will be annoyed that you will have to manually synchronize the watch daily when in 5 years it starts running 2 seconds a day fast, my personal (EL) G-Shock is set to +9s/year, on daily basis it's more accurate than my "multiband 6" watch after 12 hours past synchronization, because it drifts 0.25s/d. I digress.

I invite your opinions, I am sure Casio engineers visit this forum, would be cool to get some pro-opinions. I have been looking for a square G-Shock with LED backlight, and they simply do not exist in combination with Solar and no-bluetooth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,594 Posts
I think the LED is WAY better than the old EL light. On the 5610 I had the EL was that harsh green color, and if I checked it in real darkness it was blindingly bright, it took my eyes a moment to adjust so I could even read it, and by then the light would turn off because it only stayed on like 1.5 seconds or so, so I'd have to hit the button again. The B5000 square, with it's 2 or 4 second LED light, is far superior. It's not as harsh on my eyes, they don't need as long to adjust to it as they do the green EL, and even if they did at least it stays on long enough.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
773 Posts
I haven't seen these modules. Do the bluetooth models have a traditional quartz module? It's possible the quartz has been replaced with a MEMS oscillator to make room for the bluetooth circuitry (including 2.4Ghz oscillator), the much smaller MEMS usually have built-in temperature and aging rate compensation.

From my understanding of the EL, the LED consumes a lot less power and doesn't require the high voltage AC power inverter that EL does (the high pitch whine you might hear with EL). Plus the LCD film viewing issues you mentioned.

I like my EL casios, but I'd swap them for and orange LED backlight in the same design for sure.

A good example of the technology at work can be had by comparing the a158/a168/a700. being lamp (I think?), EL and LED respectively. I only have a a168, but the photos of the a158 light look awful, and from photos the a700 looks great: the whole watch is thinner, as is the depth between the LCD and the back reflector, so there's much less LCD shadow in daylight (as is quite evident in all the LCD photos above)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,244 Posts
There are some older, non-solar, non-BT models that have an LED backlight, for example the GD-100, GD-120, GD-350 and GD-400. To my eye these are excessively bright for reading the time in the dark, at least in the positive display models.

The GW-9400 is one solar, non-BT model that has an LED backlight, and it's not ridiculously bright like the others noted above.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GrouchoM

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,435 Posts
how often you need to use the light in a day ? not that much
how often you need to use the light in a completely blacked out room? this is even rarer
and to do what? taking medicines ? or meeting up with someone for illegal activities? or simply just a habit ? or old people cannot sleep that much?
and this comes from me, a guy who works night for years

when bluetooth comes, the trimmer has to go because it become unnecessary. Why is it a drawback? old tech has to give way to new tech. Either you welcome it or stay in the past by buying old G's
I don't like bluetooth that much either. However, syncing is still way better than having to open the G to make an adjustment: that might or might not lead to more disasters such as crew holes get loose, water-proof being unnecessarily tampered ...etc

and lastly, why people care about accuracy that much? while wasting time in a forum ? typing this thread, it takes me 15 min - 2 seconds per month/ per year/ per five years means nothing. And it is not like the G you complained about worth 1000+ buck or even 500

IN THIS LIFE, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO FIND PERFECTION IN THE IMPERFECTIONS AROUND YOU, otherwise, you'd be miserable
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I haven't seen these modules. Do the bluetooth models have a traditional quartz module? It's possible the quartz has been replaced with a MEMS oscillator to make room for the bluetooth circuitry (including 2.4Ghz oscillator), the much smaller MEMS usually have built-in temperature and aging rate compensation.

From my understanding of the EL, the LED consumes a lot less power and doesn't require the high voltage AC power inverter that EL does (the high pitch whine you might hear with EL). Plus the LCD film viewing issues you mentioned.

I like my EL casios, but I'd swap them for and orange LED backlight in the same design for sure.

A good example of the technology at work can be had by comparing the a158/a168/a700. being lamp (I think?), EL and LED respectively. I only have a a168, but the photos of the a158 light look awful, and from photos the a700 looks great: the whole watch is thinner, as is the depth between the LCD and the back reflector, so there's much less LCD shadow in daylight (as is quite evident in all the LCD photos above)
I wanted to use these watches side by side as my photo example instead of my examples, but the store was short on staff and I had to wait in line so I bailed, now I regret it because you guys knew of those models lol so they would be great. But yeah, I love that Orange it's so even and nice, you are right on all points, and I am very curious about the bluetooth models, the crazy part is that Apple watches are thermo regulated and are accurate to 10 seconds a year and they aren't even a watch company, if bluetooth models come with MEMS as you mentioned with the "real time clock" technology as well (someone really needs to verify and test) then the trimmer capacitor would be unnecessary. I will dig the forum to see if anyone measured the accuracy of the BT gshocks, I've asked on amazon but I get the lay persons answers like "its accurate because it synchronizes" (lol).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
270 Posts
Regarding time accuracy:

1. My Windows 10 computer is off by -0.004s from the exact atomic time (NIST):

15809354



2. My phone is off by 0.105s:

15809358


My two BT G-Shocks and my three MB6 G-Shocks, show the exact same time as No. 1 above (as far as I can tell without lab equipment).I do note a slight difference between the watches and my phone.

I think regarding time accuracy both technologies are very close. Therefore, there are, probably, other factors that determine which one to use (manufacturing costs, supply chain issues, customer preference, etc.)

* If you're a manufacturer, you want to be as close to No. 1 as possible, of course.

* If you're a consumer, even No.2 is acceptable (these errors are not accumulative)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,112 Posts
It would be trivial for manufacturers to put in an LED backlight brightness adjustment via pwm. It would be kind of fun :)

If i could make the backlight 10 times dimmer but last 10 times longer, I might do it!

Another cool feature would be an automatic “ppm” display for MB6 watches that would update every sync, showing the difference between internal time accuracy and the MB6 time. Or if the internal time representation resolution wasn’t available to support that, do a “seconds per day” every month or something :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,594 Posts
I will dig the forum to see if anyone measured the accuracy of the BT gshocks, I've asked on amazon but I get the lay persons answers like "its accurate because it synchronizes" (lol).
I'll save you the dig, I ran my GMW-B5000 for a month with no syncing and it was juuuuuust over 3sec fast at the end of that month. Pretty typical quartz.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
468 Posts
Another cool feature would be an automatic “ppm” display for MB6 watches that would update every sync, showing the difference between internal time accuracy and the MB6 time. Or if the internal time representation resolution wasn’t available to support that, do a “seconds per day” every month or something :)
I would like to see a watch which can "auto trim" it's own quartz accuracy by remembering the difference (between internal time and atomic) of each successful sync. A then using a "best guess" adjustment in the case where sync is not successful.

It would be interesting as a thought experiment to see how this method compares to true HAQ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Regarding time accuracy:

1. My Windows 10 computer is off by -0.004s from the exact atomic time (NIST):

View attachment 15809354


2. My phone is off by 0.105s:

View attachment 15809358

My two BT G-Shocks and my three MB6 G-Shocks, show the exact same time as No. 1 above (as far as I can tell without lab equipment).I do note a slight difference between the watches and my phone.

I think regarding time accuracy both technologies are very close. Therefore, there are, probably, other factors that determine which one to use (manufacturing costs, supply chain issues, customer preference, etc.)

* If you're a manufacturer, you want to be as close to No. 1 as possible, of course.

* If you're a consumer, even No.2 is acceptable (these errors are not accumulative)
I don't know if I can trust your windows time because my laptop for example and from my experience computers have the worst time keeping, their updates come rarely and often times its very behind, I am actually running this program that auto synchronizes the clock every minute and there is about +0.5 update every minute.

As per bluetooth accuracy, I would like to see what the accuracy was after a month without synchronizing, if that is the actual daily rate then the bluetooth watches would seem to be accurate to 10s/year, but for that really a month long test is needed, actually do this with both of your Gshocks please, for maximum variation, wear one while not wearing the other one for the second month to see if they are thermo-compensated. Not sure if you'd be up for the task but it would be awesome if you did this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
I'll save you the dig, I ran my GMW-B5000 for a month with no syncing and it was juuuuuust over 3sec fast at the end of that month. Pretty typical quartz.
oh this is pretty terrible... and considering you cant even adjust it.... unless it has some sort of self adjustment where it will analyze from the synchronization how fast it is on average and take away the ppm or whatever, though if it had that feature id love for Casio to advertise it, come to think about it I dont think anyone has ever advertised this...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
I would like to see a watch which can "auto trim" it's own quartz accuracy by remembering the difference (between internal time and atomic) of each successful sync. A then using a "best guess" adjustment in the case where sync is not successful.

It would be interesting as a thought experiment to see how this method compares to true HAQ
I honestly think this should be the default for all casio watches even cheap ones, this is such a simple algorithm, like when a user adjusts their watch and the adjustment is within 30 seconds -- logic treats it as time correction and does the average calculation to the last time correction, and then subtracts that amount every hour, you would end up with accuracy better than capacitor trimmer screw, and it would be non-invasive... doing this over a year would have the most accurate wear pattern too over various temperatures and seasons.

listen to this casio engineers😑
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,594 Posts
oh this is pretty terrible... and considering you cant even adjust it.... unless it has some sort of self adjustment where it will analyze from the synchronization how fast it is on average and take away the ppm or whatever, though if it had that feature id love for Casio to advertise it, come to think about it I dont think anyone has ever advertised this...
hahaha, yeah, 36-40sec a year, total garbage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
270 Posts
oh this is pretty terrible... and considering you cant even adjust it.... unless it has some sort of self adjustment where it will analyze from the synchronization how fast it is on average and take away the ppm or whatever, though if it had that feature id love for Casio to advertise it, come to think about it I dont think anyone has ever advertised this...
Why pretty terrible?

CASIO indicates on their manuals that the expected accuracy, with no synchronization via MB6 or BT, is +/- 15 secs/month, which is pretty typical.

So, 3 sec/month, without using BT or MB6, is, actually, five times better than expected. And much better than any mechanical watch, which normally have a time accuracy of < +/- 1.0 sec/day.

Why would you use sec/year (or sec/10 year for that matter) as a comparison basis?

When I still used mechanical watches, I would manually synchronize them, normally, four times a year. At least twice a year. Otherwise, it was pointless to use them as time keeping instruments. Until I got tired of doing that and switched to quartz only watches, eventually to MB6 watches and now BT.

These days, any company can keep precise time, without being watchmakers, as long as they can connect to an appropriate time signal. My computer's time is, typically, ten times more precise than my phone's, because, phone companies introduce additional lag on their time signals. Yet, time from a cellphone is completely acceptable for real life, day to day use (even though you know that it could be off by a tenth of a second. Terrible, I know)

My company's control systems, even my car, via GPS, have much more precise time than any mechanical watch. And you know what, mechanical watch manufacturers don't care, because their target market use their time pieces, mostly, as fashion items and not for precise time keeping (in fact many will use a cheap MB6 radio controlled CASIO to synchronize their mechanical watches)..

By the way, time synchronization via Bluetooth, is not done with the carrier's time (at least in CASIO's case) but with CASIO's own time servers, which are connected to atomic clocks, with the minimum possible lag.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
310 Posts
I hope that poster above was kidding. +3 seconds a month for any quartz watch is fantastic. In fact, I have 10 G-SHOCKs and with the sync turned off my BEST one is +5 seconds per month ( a DW6900 ) and the others are anywhere from +8 or so all the way to +13. The DW5600C I just got it was about +45 seconds ( and this is all per MONTH here people ). Still, I popped the case back and am in the middle of trimming the timer on it as we speak.

But yes, plus 3 seconds a MONTH is fantastic. Just for some perspective - the new Rolex certification for their movements is +/-2 seconds PER DAY.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
151 Posts
Keep in mind that quartz crystals run faster when they are colder. Highly accurate quartz clocks tend to be temperature-compensated: they periodically sample the temperature and effectively adjust the "trimmer switch" accordingly.

A non-temperature-compensated watch, perfectly accurate when worn on the wrist, will run fast when stored on a cold table.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
270 Posts
That's why, mission critical clocks run in, not only temperature but also humidity controlled environments. For non-mission critical applications (99.9% of them. i.e. Oops. How much time I've been in this coffee shop?) that's pretty much pointless.

And, for some reason, this thread morphed into a timekeeping discussion instead of EL vs LED technologies, which is, actually, really interesting (I think the OP mentioned both, though).
 
1 - 20 of 56 Posts
Top