Slashdot Mirror
For Normals, Jobs' "Retina Display" Claim May Be Fair After All
The Bad Astronomer writes "AT WWDC, Steve Jobs claimed that the iPhone 4's display has about the same resolution as the human eye — held at one foot away, the iPhone 4's pixels are too small to see. After reading an earlier Slashdot post about an expert disputing Jobs' claim, I decided to run the numbers myself. I found that Jobs is correct for people with normal vision, and the expert was using numbers for theoretically perfect vision. So to most people, the iPhone 4 display will look unpixellated."
i'm holding my droid at 1 foot distance and I can't distinguish any single pixel. I have to get it to about 3-4 inches to do so convincingly.
Granted, anti-aliased fonts help a ton.
... will it look even better for me?
blah, blah, blah...
One must not forget about Anti aliasing or the fact that each pixel contains 3 RGB sub pixels. This increases the effect PPI significantly.
What bugs me is when a company uses a name for something that doesn't make sense.
When I hear "retina display" I think what you are talking about is a system that projects an image into my retina.
Most Slashdotters will never be anywhere close to one foot from a vagina anyway, so it's not like we'll have anything to compare it to when surfing our porn on it.
... every one turns off their WiFi
Specs might speak to the slashdot crowd, but I think Apple owes a lot of its success to a realizing that most consumers buy benefits, not features. The endless list of would-be iPod/iPhone killers that touted better features but failed to have an impact in the market are evidence of this.
The only people who are going to look at the screen and think "hey, they said I wouldn't be able to see the pixels but I can!" are people who look at printed magazines and think "wow, when are they going to get rid of all these dots?" The screen has print level resolution and, as a graphic designer, that simply blows my mind. As has been mentioned in that other thread, graphic designers do digital work in 300 dpi for print work and 72 dpi for online work. If this screen technology becomes the new norm, we'll be doing all work at 300 dpi, which is damn, damn, damn impressive to look at. At that point, the technology bottleneck will be the pipes (a 72 dpi image is quite a bit smaller than a 300 dpi image, after all...). I do hope this tech spreads to lots of other devices and computer displays.
But, yes, anyone who claims that Apple was lying about it being a "retinal" display is simply attempting to pick a needless fight. Ignore them and move on.
There's one in the eye for all the haters on the previous story who just took the random guy off the internet's word for it that Apple was wrong.
Well, the Android phones have been having quite an impact in the market recently. The big benefit of "being able to run the software you want rather than what Steve Jobs says you can run" seems to speak to people, since that's the major thing Android has going for it that the iPhone doesn't.
"the resolution/DPI is so dense that your eyes won't be able to distinguish individual pixels"(TM). OR...
"Retina Display"(TM).
I think Android's popularity might have more to do with it being available on more devices, including much cheaper devices. Even then, the single model iPhone is still outselling it (counting different capacity iPhones as one model of course). You overestimate the average consumer's ability to care about things such as being able to run software from anywhere.
I think you're taking it too far with this statement.
I'd say it's more of case of letting people know that Android phones do apps too. Joe or Jane Average could care less that the apps aren't "curated" in the "walled garden." They just want to know if the phone does apps, and how easy is it to get them.
I want to shoot the messenger!
it's alright, the math assumes that nobody is nearsighted. Since nearsightedness is very common, the article's comments don't hold true at all.
Some people can see magnitudes smaller arcmin than .6 up close, in fact like .2 or so. Anyone with 20/10 vision (which is common with correction such as eyeglasses or contacts) is going to still see plenty of pixelation.
It's still a substantial improvement in pixels, but the article is incorrect.
You mean that real life doesn't have pixels everywhere I look?
Have you ever seen how pixelated the beach is?
It's not _projecting onto ones retina_ any more than another LCD screen is.
But you see, they all do that. All visible objects do that. That's how our eyes work. Light reflected or emitted from objects uses the lens in your eye to project an image onto your retina. It is technically correct, and no, it's not anything special, other than being a high resolution display.
Could it be, that this is just a trade name? (and that perhaps some people have a little too much time on their hands?)
When I search for a document on my Mac, I don't expect an actual Spotlight to shine on the document.
When I restore a file from a backup using Time Machine, I don't imagine that there's actual time travel taking place.
If I use the feature that shows all of my overlapping windows resized so they fit on the screen and I can choose which one to work on, I don't expect the crew from 20/20 or 60 Minutes or Dateline NBC to show up and do an actual Exposé.
Holy crap, I just found out there's no control tower or runway involved in using Airport networking! What a complete and total fraud!
MobileMe doesn't actually cause me to move around either!
And, worst of all, the damned Magic Mouse doesn't have any magical powers! I just tried to cast a Patronus Charm with it, just like in those Harry Potter movies, and the damn thing didn't work at all. It doesn't even fly around unless you throw it. I want my money back!
Putting moderation advice in your
The only reason my friends have cited for eschewing iPhone and going Android when it came out is "It's not AT&T". They think of Android phones as iPhones that work on other networks.
The human eye can resolve much finer than 300 dpi --- 400 dpi is where fonts start to look nice on a laserprinter (notably the NeXT laserprinter had a 400dpi mode in addition to the then more standard 300dpi --- it was distinctly noticeable when one changed printing modes) and imagesetters are easily differentiated by their output at 1,270 ppi vice 2,540 ppi (and there are models which go higher) --- see the book _Counterpunch: Making Type in the 16th Century, Designing Typefaces Now_ by Fred Smeijers for electron micrographs and a discussion of this which shows that the human eye can easily see the thickness of a 1/1,270th of an inch curl of steel.
Granted, the iPhone screen is 326 _pixels_ per inch, so one gets anti-aliasing, yielding a higher effective dpi, and possibly sub-pixel rendering, but screens need to get better yet.
Image resolution is measured in several ways:
ppi (pixels per inch) --- input / file resolution
dpi (dots per inch) --- output resolution for a single ink colour
lpi - (lines per inch) --- output resolution for ``halftones'' which allows the simulation of multiple levels when one can only do on/off --- newspapers use ~85 lpi, uncoated stock in books ~133lpi, magazines 150 lpi or higher, art books 200 lpi --- different printing processes/tecniques are used for better quality or fewer generations
A pixel is a ``picture element'' a unit of a raster grid which can be more finely differentiated than just black or white --- the coarsest pixel I can think of would be the monochrome NeXT Cube (and later Slabs) which had black, white and two shades of grey.
Try putting a 326 ppi greyscale image of a Gustav Doré engraving on the iPhone and compare that to the actual engraving in a book --- the difference between them will be obvious to anyone w/ good vision.
Different printing and halftoning techniques make lpi rather complex --- stochastic screening does away w/ it for example and exhibits improvement to the limits of output resolution --- 3600 dpi on some imagesetters.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
I think Android's popularity might have more to do with it being available on a network other than AT&T.
The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
I think this speaks poorly of the general public
The general public doesn't give a damn about DPI numbers, nor should they. They care about something that gives them value for their dollars, and marketing is all about conveying the value.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
It is called marketing.
Tell you what. Show me where their is a turbine on an Intel I7 and how it speeds up the CPU when you use Intel's Turbo Boost technology and I will all bent out of shape over Apple's Retina display.
It is market speak and it is everywhere. It usually only bugs you if you don't like the product, the company, or know how stuff really works.
Frankly I just tune it all out and don't let it bother me anymore.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I heard the other day that the jumbotron at the new cowboy stadium is a retina display.... from a distance of 27 miles.
Which kind of proves the point. It's not one at the distance it's meant to be used.
This seems to be an arbitrary way of claiming that your screen is better than everyone else's.
No more or less arbitrary than any other way.
t's nice, but it isn't revolutionary outside of the iWorld.
It IS revolutionary, and unless Apple helped develop or fund it, it's got nothing to do with "iWorld".
It's only a little bit denser than other phone displays that have been around for months.
66 ppi isn't a "little bit denser". It's a 25% increase, which is huge for a mature technology. At this size, nothing even close to this density has yet been achieved.
When you look at IPS displays, nothing even approaching 200 ppi has been marketed before.
In either case, it's a massive technological achievement in an industry you clearly don't understand.
Will someone please tell me how that isn't false advertising?
Because it wasn't advertising. There was no representation that any device was being used, but only that the effect of higher density was being demonstrated, which is hard to do on a single fixed-resolution projector. And it wasn't anywhere near 50x greater. The type example was about 4-5x greater density.
The actual grid examples, as well as the demos of the actual product were accurate.
you don't like iTunes that's fine... but what rock have you been hiding under that you don't know Apple removed the DRM the second they were allowed to?
Even if your argument were factually correct, which it is not, exercising a modicum of common sense would explain that it is AT&T who gain from exclusivity, not Apple. When Apple, approached the carriers with the iPhone, AT&T were the only ones who did not point blank reject Apple's demand that the device not carry the network logo, as well as crippling the phone with their network's "features" and burying it in shovelware. AT&T demanded exclusive rights for five years in return for agreeing to Apple's terms.
Remember that no one could have predicted that the device would become a runaway smash hit, and AT&T were in the driver's seat; they were the only option left to Apple after the other networks had rejected Apple's terms. Jobs demanded a percentage of iPhone data revenues in return for exclusivity, to help offset lost opportunities with other carriers. This was a no-brainer for AT&T. If iPhone failed, no big deal, they sell a hell of a lot of different devices, and if only a tiny fraction of their customers used the iPhone, giving Apple a cut of iPhone data revenues would have a minimal impact on their bottom line.
Except...the iPhone succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams. It brought AT&T millions of new customers, and data traffic spiked, bringing the network to its knees. AT&T made money hand over fist off their exclusivity deal, attracting new customers and retaining them despite their shitty service. Case in point, a friend of mine in Seattle who switched from Verizon to AT&T in February just to get an iPhone. She had wanted to trade her BlackBerry Curve for a touchscreen smartphone, and the only thing Verizon had at the time was the Storm. She loathed it, and whenever we spoke she'd complain bitterly about it. When she called me a couple months ago just to tell me how much she loved her iPhone, AT&T dropped the call three times in fifteen minutes. When I redialed her for the third time and asked her how the hell she could put up with such awful service, she said that the iPhone was such a joy for her to use that she was willing to tolerate it, but said she'd jump back to Verizon in a New York minute if they got the device. In fact, her enthusiasm for the iPhone was such that she said she was considering getting her first Mac, which couldn't have gone over too well at home; her husband works for Microsoft. And just to forestall the argument that iPhone users are sheep, yes, she is a non-technical user, but far from stupid; she's an emergency room physician, and a damned good one too. It never fails to amuse me when smug, elitist techies describe users of Apple products as smug and elitist.
To suggest that Apple were the ones who demanded exclusivity is laughable, and that they did so out of greed, is simply irrational. Why the hell would they willingly restrict their own potential sales? You sound like just another anti-Apple jihadist, willing to distort facts in any way you can to demonstrate that Apple is "evil".