If it was the PowerVR 6, they'd be getting it a year before anyone else. Sony thinks they are getting it first with the Nova A9600, which ships in 2013:
A year in and no one has the SGX543MP2 either in a smartphone either. It won't be the first time Apple got new tech early. I agree that the 543MP4 is more likely though, and things running at native resolution will take a hit similar to the 3gs-4.
The young lady states that we could argue that "retina display" is more about perceived image quality than specs. But as the specs are based on human visual perception, she's wrong. What you can argue about is viewing distance. Whether that argument will have any effect on sales is another issue entirely.
It's actually a complex area. A number of studies that give us numbers are simply wrong, or limited in their scope. One problem is that most of these studies use white and black. Another very well known study used a green and black monitor.
It should be known that we are most sensitive in the green area of the spectrum, less sensitive in the red, and least sensitive in the blue.. In addition, contrast plays a big part in our ability to see detail.
So a single number isn't really very useful in telling us what we can, or can't see. People tell me that my iPad is very sharp (yes, they are talking about the picture, not the edges). And it is, unless you get too close. But a few things don't always appear sharp. Certain text and graphics can appear aliased. But photos don't. Continuous tone images need less resolution than do hard edge images.
In addition to that, there are sub-pixels. That is, the actual RGB pixels themselves that make up the cluster. They are far smaller than the entire pixel that includes them, and are too small to see on an iPad.
So this issue isn't so cut and dry. I'm willing to bet that the 264ppi screen will appear to be a retina display just about as much as the one on my 4S.
I don't watch any sitcoms which airs on regular TV. I prefer cable series.
And whenever I'm not using my iPad 2, I like to keep a live stream of Fox News constantly running on it. It's good to keep informed, up to date and aware of the latest developments that criminal liberals are up to. Most people agree with me too, as Fox News is the top rated cable news channel by far.
I'm willing to bet that the 264ppi screen will appear to be a retina display just about as much as the one on my 4S.
Yeah, the difference is only 50% more pixels per square inch on the 4S so if you looked at both from the same distance, it would be the equivalent ratio of looking at a 720p display next to a 1080p display of the same size from the same distance but in this case the pixel density is far higher in both.
Apparently 20/20 vision is only capable of resolving 286 PPI at 12 inches:
People certainly hold their phones less than a foot away from their face but I don't think I've ever seen an iPad user do that. If you sit it on your knee or a table, it will be a couple of feet away.
I think it's safe to say that people won't be able to see the pixels in normal use, which is the intended effect.
Yeah, the difference is only 50% more pixels per square inch on the 4S so if you looked at both from the same distance, it would be the equivalent ratio of looking at a 720p display next to a 1080p display of the same size from the same distance but in this case the pixel density is far higher in both.
Apparently 20/20 vision is only capable of resolving 286 PPI at 12 inches:
People certainly hold their phones less than a foot away from their face but I don't think I've ever seen an iPad user do that. If you sit it on your knee or a table, it will be a couple of feet away.
I think it's safe to say that people won't be able to see the pixels in normal use, which is the intended effect.
I hold my iPhone about a foot away most of the time, but sometimes as close as 9", or so. Frankly, the density is so high that I can read 4 point type, but it's too small to be comfortable at one foot.
My iPad is usually at about 18", unless it's on my knees, as it is now while I type this. Now, it's about 14" away. But it's still rarely obvious that there are pixels there. Even when small type is fuzzy, with the anti-aliasing, it looks fuzzy, not pixelated. But if I look carefully at the Similies at the side of the page while I'm typing, I can see pixelization at the top and bottom of the circles. But I have to get a bit closer to see it. At the normal distance, I can't see it at all, though small type can be fuzzy. But the fuzzy type is due to the anti-aliasing.
I imagine that with 264 ppi, the aliasing will move down in type size, and so will be much less visible.
I hold my iPhone about a foot away most of the time, but sometimes as close as 9", or so. Frankly, the density is so high that I can read 4 point type, but it's too small to be comfortable at one foot.
My iPad is usually at about 18", unless it's on my knees, as it is now while I type this. Now, it's about 14" away. But it's still rarely obvious that there are pixels there. Even when small type is fuzzy, with the anti-aliasing, it looks fuzzy, not pixelated. But if I look carefully at the Similies at the side of the page while I'm typing, I can see pixelization at the top and bottom of the circles. But I have to get a bit closer to see it. At the normal distance, I can't see it at all, though small type can be fuzzy. But the fuzzy type is due to the anti-aliasing.
I imagine that with 264 ppi, the aliasing will move down in type size, and so will be much less visible.
Hi Mel ... Yes, trying to behave myself.
Anyways, yeah, iPad is nice as it is, but 4x the pixels will make it, just, super clear and a great visual experience. Apple certainly has always been heavy on the anti-aliasing, so Retina iPad should be just nice for iPad 2X, and then they can focus on form factor, weight, functionality for the next few iterations.
People certainly hold their phones less than a foot away from their face but I don't think I've ever seen an iPad user do that. If you sit it on your knee or a table, it will be a couple of feet away.
I think it's safe to say that people won't be able to see the pixels in normal use, which is the intended effect.
Your final conclusion is one that I think we all need to focus on. Who cares about an alleged definition of the word retina? What matters in real world use is if it acheives performance that is "good enough" or in this case, "pixels small enough to be indiscernible".
Also, I think a clean quadrupling of pixels is much better for the platform. We don't want the situation where bitmapped GUI elements are scaled badly, resulting in poor rendering and sub-optimal sizing for convenient interaction.
With that said, people do view their iPads from a distance of one foot or less. You must have perfect vision and/or never use your iPad laying down. A non-insignificant percentage people use their iPad while laying in bed or on the couch. In this usage scenario, the iPad tends to be quite close to the head. Personally, I never use the ipad on a table or resting on my lap. My vision just doesn't allow for that. Not that this is the case for everyone. Just pointing out that usage scenarios vary.
Your final conclusion is one that I think we all need to focus on. Who cares about an alleged definition of the word retina? What matters in real world use is if it acheives performance that is "good enough" or in this case, "pixels small enough to be indiscernible".
Also, I think a clean quadrupling of pixels is much better for the platform. We don't want the situation where bitmapped GUI elements are scaled badly, resulting in poor rendering and sub-optimal sizing for convenient interaction.
With that said, people do view their iPads from a distance of one foot or less. You must have perfect vision and/or never use your iPad laying down. A non-insignificant percentage people use their iPad while laying in bed or on the couch. In this usage scenario, the iPad tends to be quite close to the head. Personally, I never use the ipad on a table or resting on my lap. My vision just doesn't allow for that. Not that this is the case for everyone. Just pointing out that usage scenarios vary.
If your vision is such that you must view closer, then the same principle applies. You are seeing at one foot whAtothers are seeing at 18" insofar as sharpness is concerned, depending on your eye condition.
But really, Apple can't be concerned about everyone. There are people with 20/15, though that's very rare. In speaking to my eye surgeon, we discussed the fact that, in theory, people should a actually be able to get to 20/12, but that he's never seen that in the thousands of patients he's examined, and as far as he knows, neither has any other eye doctor.
On the other hand, before my cataract surgery I saw about 20/750. So I could focus at about 4-5", and got a good 2x magnification, which gave me the ability to see small details that others needed a magnifying glass for. But that didn't mean that a retina display needed to be 700dpi just because I could see the pixels. That would be absurd!
I think we agree but a minor quibble is that people with poor vision don't see the same thing by moving an object closer. A number of things are different at a close focal distance. The same object takes up much more of the field of vision. This affects the amount of lens an retina perceiving the object. It also affects which portion of the lens and retina are involved in that perception. Similarly, background objects occupy a different percentage of the field of vission. Perception of detail, motion and color is different as it gets closer to the peripheral field. Eye muscles used to change focal length are also interacting to some degree with stereoscopic focussing. Etc...
But yeah, I don't think we disagree about anything related to display resolutions. Is anyone actually suggesting that we need 700dpi?
I think we agree but a minor quibble is that people with poor vision don't see the same thing by moving an object closer. A number of things are different at a close focal distance. The same object takes up much more of the field of vision. This affects the amount of lens an retina perceiving the object. It also affects which portion of the lens and retina are involved in that perception. Similarly, background objects occupy a different percentage of the field of vission. Perception of detail, motion and color is different as it gets closer to the peripheral field. Eye muscles used to change focal length are also interacting to some degree with stereoscopic focussing. Etc...
But yeah, I don't think we disagree about anything related to display resolutions. Is anyone actually suggesting that we need 700dpi?
The question is what do we mean by poor vision? I was very nearsighted, and so I did see much more detail. But if someone was farsighted, it would be the opposite, as they then would need glasses for reading, as I do now, and so could see no better than the average person close up.
The question is what do we mean by poor vision? I was very nearsighted, and so I did see much more detail. But if someone was farsighted, it would be the opposite, as they then would need glasses for reading, as I do now, and so could see no better than the average person close up.
I'm so near sighted that a book or an iPad has to be roughly 6 inches from my face to read without glasses. At that distance I can focus with one eye or the other but not both. If reading without glasses, I alternate between eyes. Needless to say, I prefer reading with glasses or contacts, despite being nearsighted.
On the other hand, I have incredible near vision and can easily see tiny details, especially with contacts.
Vision is a quirky thing. "Poor vision" can mean many different things to different people. Point being, a good percentage of iPad users hold their iPad close enough to constantly see every pixel during normal use.
Comments
If it was the PowerVR 6, they'd be getting it a year before anyone else. Sony thinks they are getting it first with the Nova A9600, which ships in 2013:
A year in and no one has the SGX543MP2 either in a smartphone either. It won't be the first time Apple got new tech early. I agree that the 543MP4 is more likely though, and things running at native resolution will take a hit similar to the 3gs-4.
...yes...yes, I do.
Sometimes I wonder if some of you have even talked to a woman before
...
Sometimes I wonder if some of you have even talked to a woman before
I just talked to my super model girlfriend last night on WoW. She's in Milan doing a photoshoot. She's always busy.
The young lady states that we could argue that "retina display" is more about perceived image quality than specs. But as the specs are based on human visual perception, she's wrong. What you can argue about is viewing distance. Whether that argument will have any effect on sales is another issue entirely.
It's actually a complex area. A number of studies that give us numbers are simply wrong, or limited in their scope. One problem is that most of these studies use white and black. Another very well known study used a green and black monitor.
It should be known that we are most sensitive in the green area of the spectrum, less sensitive in the red, and least sensitive in the blue.. In addition, contrast plays a big part in our ability to see detail.
So a single number isn't really very useful in telling us what we can, or can't see. People tell me that my iPad is very sharp (yes, they are talking about the picture, not the edges). And it is, unless you get too close. But a few things don't always appear sharp. Certain text and graphics can appear aliased. But photos don't. Continuous tone images need less resolution than do hard edge images.
In addition to that, there are sub-pixels. That is, the actual RGB pixels themselves that make up the cluster. They are far smaller than the entire pixel that includes them, and are too small to see on an iPad.
So this issue isn't so cut and dry. I'm willing to bet that the 264ppi screen will appear to be a retina display just about as much as the one on my 4S.
I don't watch any sitcoms which airs on regular TV. I prefer cable series.
And whenever I'm not using my iPad 2, I like to keep a live stream of Fox News constantly running on it. It's good to keep informed, up to date and aware of the latest developments that criminal liberals are up to. Most people agree with me too, as Fox News is the top rated cable news channel by far.
Sad, truly sad.
I'm willing to bet that the 264ppi screen will appear to be a retina display just about as much as the one on my 4S.
Yeah, the difference is only 50% more pixels per square inch on the 4S so if you looked at both from the same distance, it would be the equivalent ratio of looking at a 720p display next to a 1080p display of the same size from the same distance but in this case the pixel density is far higher in both.
Apparently 20/20 vision is only capable of resolving 286 PPI at 12 inches:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...ne-resolution/
People certainly hold their phones less than a foot away from their face but I don't think I've ever seen an iPad user do that. If you sit it on your knee or a table, it will be a couple of feet away.
I think it's safe to say that people won't be able to see the pixels in normal use, which is the intended effect.
I only need 2...
Yeah, the difference is only 50% more pixels per square inch on the 4S so if you looked at both from the same distance, it would be the equivalent ratio of looking at a 720p display next to a 1080p display of the same size from the same distance but in this case the pixel density is far higher in both.
Apparently 20/20 vision is only capable of resolving 286 PPI at 12 inches:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...ne-resolution/
People certainly hold their phones less than a foot away from their face but I don't think I've ever seen an iPad user do that. If you sit it on your knee or a table, it will be a couple of feet away.
I think it's safe to say that people won't be able to see the pixels in normal use, which is the intended effect.
I hold my iPhone about a foot away most of the time, but sometimes as close as 9", or so. Frankly, the density is so high that I can read 4 point type, but it's too small to be comfortable at one foot.
My iPad is usually at about 18", unless it's on my knees, as it is now while I type this. Now, it's about 14" away. But it's still rarely obvious that there are pixels there. Even when small type is fuzzy, with the anti-aliasing, it looks fuzzy, not pixelated. But if I look carefully at the Similies at the side of the page while I'm typing, I can see pixelization at the top and bottom of the circles. But I have to get a bit closer to see it. At the normal distance, I can't see it at all, though small type can be fuzzy. But the fuzzy type is due to the anti-aliasing.
I imagine that with 264 ppi, the aliasing will move down in type size, and so will be much less visible.
I hold my iPhone about a foot away most of the time, but sometimes as close as 9", or so. Frankly, the density is so high that I can read 4 point type, but it's too small to be comfortable at one foot.
My iPad is usually at about 18", unless it's on my knees, as it is now while I type this. Now, it's about 14" away. But it's still rarely obvious that there are pixels there. Even when small type is fuzzy, with the anti-aliasing, it looks fuzzy, not pixelated. But if I look carefully at the Similies at the side of the page while I'm typing, I can see pixelization at the top and bottom of the circles. But I have to get a bit closer to see it. At the normal distance, I can't see it at all, though small type can be fuzzy. But the fuzzy type is due to the anti-aliasing.
I imagine that with 264 ppi, the aliasing will move down in type size, and so will be much less visible.
Hi Mel
Anyways, yeah, iPad is nice as it is, but 4x the pixels will make it, just, super clear and a great visual experience. Apple certainly has always been heavy on the anti-aliasing, so Retina iPad should be just nice for iPad 2X, and then they can focus on form factor, weight, functionality for the next few iterations.
People certainly hold their phones less than a foot away from their face but I don't think I've ever seen an iPad user do that. If you sit it on your knee or a table, it will be a couple of feet away.
I think it's safe to say that people won't be able to see the pixels in normal use, which is the intended effect.
Your final conclusion is one that I think we all need to focus on. Who cares about an alleged definition of the word retina? What matters in real world use is if it acheives performance that is "good enough" or in this case, "pixels small enough to be indiscernible".
Also, I think a clean quadrupling of pixels is much better for the platform. We don't want the situation where bitmapped GUI elements are scaled badly, resulting in poor rendering and sub-optimal sizing for convenient interaction.
With that said, people do view their iPads from a distance of one foot or less. You must have perfect vision and/or never use your iPad laying down. A non-insignificant percentage people use their iPad while laying in bed or on the couch. In this usage scenario, the iPad tends to be quite close to the head. Personally, I never use the ipad on a table or resting on my lap. My vision just doesn't allow for that. Not that this is the case for everyone. Just pointing out that usage scenarios vary.
Your final conclusion is one that I think we all need to focus on. Who cares about an alleged definition of the word retina? What matters in real world use is if it acheives performance that is "good enough" or in this case, "pixels small enough to be indiscernible".
Also, I think a clean quadrupling of pixels is much better for the platform. We don't want the situation where bitmapped GUI elements are scaled badly, resulting in poor rendering and sub-optimal sizing for convenient interaction.
With that said, people do view their iPads from a distance of one foot or less. You must have perfect vision and/or never use your iPad laying down. A non-insignificant percentage people use their iPad while laying in bed or on the couch. In this usage scenario, the iPad tends to be quite close to the head. Personally, I never use the ipad on a table or resting on my lap. My vision just doesn't allow for that. Not that this is the case for everyone. Just pointing out that usage scenarios vary.
If your vision is such that you must view closer, then the same principle applies. You are seeing at one foot whAtothers are seeing at 18" insofar as sharpness is concerned, depending on your eye condition.
But really, Apple can't be concerned about everyone. There are people with 20/15, though that's very rare. In speaking to my eye surgeon, we discussed the fact that, in theory, people should a actually be able to get to 20/12, but that he's never seen that in the thousands of patients he's examined, and as far as he knows, neither has any other eye doctor.
On the other hand, before my cataract surgery I saw about 20/750. So I could focus at about 4-5", and got a good 2x magnification, which gave me the ability to see small details that others needed a magnifying glass for. But that didn't mean that a retina display needed to be 700dpi just because I could see the pixels. That would be absurd!
But yeah, I don't think we disagree about anything related to display resolutions. Is anyone actually suggesting that we need 700dpi?
I think we agree but a minor quibble is that people with poor vision don't see the same thing by moving an object closer. A number of things are different at a close focal distance. The same object takes up much more of the field of vision. This affects the amount of lens an retina perceiving the object. It also affects which portion of the lens and retina are involved in that perception. Similarly, background objects occupy a different percentage of the field of vission. Perception of detail, motion and color is different as it gets closer to the peripheral field. Eye muscles used to change focal length are also interacting to some degree with stereoscopic focussing. Etc...
But yeah, I don't think we disagree about anything related to display resolutions. Is anyone actually suggesting that we need 700dpi?
The question is what do we mean by poor vision? I was very nearsighted, and so I did see much more detail. But if someone was farsighted, it would be the opposite, as they then would need glasses for reading, as I do now, and so could see no better than the average person close up.
The question is what do we mean by poor vision? I was very nearsighted, and so I did see much more detail. But if someone was farsighted, it would be the opposite, as they then would need glasses for reading, as I do now, and so could see no better than the average person close up.
I'm so near sighted that a book or an iPad has to be roughly 6 inches from my face to read without glasses. At that distance I can focus with one eye or the other but not both. If reading without glasses, I alternate between eyes. Needless to say, I prefer reading with glasses or contacts, despite being nearsighted.
On the other hand, I have incredible near vision and can easily see tiny details, especially with contacts.
Vision is a quirky thing. "Poor vision" can mean many different things to different people. Point being, a good percentage of iPad users hold their iPad close enough to constantly see every pixel during normal use.