or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Touch Resolution (Lines Per Inch)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Touch Resolution (Lines Per Inch)

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 
Does anyone have an estimate of what the touch resolution of the iPad would be, or know what the touch resolution of the iPhone/iTouch are.

I know that the touch resolution of the iPhone is the best in class, but I'm curious how the iPad compares to Wacom tablets in touch resolution. I don't think the iPad will have near the resolution of Wacom's Intuos line, but it would be a nice surprise if it did.

I suspect that touch resolution will become just as important as visual resolution in the coming years, and hardware makers will tout their resolution as a measurement of the quality of their device.

Either way, I'm excited to be getting my iPad in the mail tomorrow, regardless of it's touch resolution in lines per inch
blog.stevenswigart.com
Reply
blog.stevenswigart.com
Reply
post #2 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechNewb View Post

Does anyone have an estimate of what the touch resolution of the iPad would be, or know what the touch resolution of the iPhone/iTouch are.

...


The screen size and pixel densities of each of these devices are published on Apple's website and elsewhere. You can calculate these numbers for yourself.

post #3 of 11
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post

The screen size and pixel densities of each of these devices are published on Apple's website and elsewhere. You can calculate these numbers for yourself. Use math. Perhaps, you have heard of it?

I'm sorry, do you understand the difference between touch resolution and visual resolution?
blog.stevenswigart.com
Reply
blog.stevenswigart.com
Reply
post #4 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post

The screen size and pixel densities of each of these devices are published on Apple's website and elsewhere. You can calculate these numbers for yourself. Use math. Perhaps, you have heard of it?

Wow, that was a bit harsh. Even if I had the numbers, I would have no idea how to calculate something like this.
post #5 of 11
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JupiterOne View Post

Wow, that was a bit harsh. Even if I had the numbers, I would have no idea how to calculate something like this.

Yes, and his statement was wrong. Pixel density has absolutely nothing of what I was talking about.
blog.stevenswigart.com
Reply
blog.stevenswigart.com
Reply
post #6 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechNewb View Post

Yes, and his statement was wrong. Pixel density has absolutely nothing of what I was talking about.

Within the last month or so, you may have seen two tests of the touch accuracy of the iPhone compared to the alternatives. The first tests published showed that the iPhone allowed the tester to draw a grid of fairly straight diagonal lines with his finger. The second published test replicated the first using a computer controlled robotic finger. The results were much the same. None of the alternatives were better.

In the real world, I can access pretty much any specific pixel on my iPhone that I want. So, I would say that the pixel density of the iPhone has absolutely something to do with what you were talking about.
post #7 of 11
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post

Within the last month or so, you may have seen two tests of the touch accuracy of the iPhone compared to the alternatives. The first tests published showed that the iPhone allowed the tester to draw a grid of fairly straight diagonal lines with his finger. The second published test replicated the first using a computer controlled robotic finger. The results were much the same. None of the alternatives were better.

In the real world, I can access pretty much any specific pixel on my iPhone that I want. So, I would say that the pixel density of the iPhone has absolutely something to do with what you were talking about.

Actually, as stated in my original post, I already noted that the iPhone was considered best in class, and this is partly because of the recent robotic line drawing tests.

I also was comparing the iPad to a Wacom tablet, and wondering how it's touch sensitivity resolution would compare, and I'm not expecting it to. But it would be cool to use the iPad as a Wacom like tablet. The Wacom's intuos series has about 5080 lpi, and not one single pixel. Thus in what I was trying to ask, pixels have nothing to do with what I was talking about.
blog.stevenswigart.com
Reply
blog.stevenswigart.com
Reply
post #8 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechNewb View Post

Actually, as stated in my original post, I already noted that the iPhone was considered best in class, and this is partly because of the recent robotic line drawing tests.

I also was comparing the iPad to a Wacom tablet, and wondering how it's touch sensitivity resolution would compare, and I'm not expecting it to. But it would be cool to use the iPad as a Wacom like tablet. The Wacom's intuos series has about 5080 lpi, and not one single pixel. Thus in what I was trying to ask, pixels have nothing to do with what I was talking about.

You can keep saying that pixel-density has nothing to do with what you are asking about, but it does. That said, cover art for The New Yorker magazine has been drawn on an iPhone using the app Brushes. The only way that you would know that a Brushes creation was created on an iPhone is if someone tells you. The iPad version should be even better. It is now available at the iTunes App Store.
post #9 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post

You can keep saying that pixel-density has nothing to do with what you are asking about, but it does. That said, cover art for The New Yorker magazine has been drawn on an iPhone using the app Brushes. The only way that you would know that a Brushes creation was created on an iPhone is if someone tells you. The iPad version should be even better. It is now available at the iTunes App Store.

You're so sadly misinformed that it would be comical if you weren't so rude to more knowledgeable people.

The only way that the pixel density of the display would have anything to do with the resolution of the touch sensor is if they were the same device using the same circuits to drive the pixels on the display & sense the touch. This is in fact not the case at all, even for the touch technology called "in-cell" which is integrated into the LCD display. The resolution of the touch sensor is a function of the pitch, or spacing, of the transparent conductive patterns. Also, there is a practical limit on how fine a resolution is possible using the current transparent conductive material & manufacturing process. Finally, a touch screen doesn't need to have a resolution higher than the width of a finger which is about 15mm from edge-to-edge.
post #10 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechNewb View Post

Actually, as stated in my original post, I already noted that the iPhone was considered best in class, and this is partly because of the recent robotic line drawing tests.

I also was comparing the iPad to a Wacom tablet, and wondering how it's touch sensitivity resolution would compare, and I'm not expecting it to. But it would be cool to use the iPad as a Wacom like tablet. The Wacom's intuos series has about 5080 lpi, and not one single pixel. Thus in what I was trying to ask, pixels have nothing to do with what I was talking about.

I'm curious about this too. I like the pen mode of the Wacom tablets, and I'd like to use my iPad as a "track pad" in that way, but I don't know whether the resolution is good enough to put the mouse pointer where I want it on a high-resolution display. I know a specific point on the iPad screen can be expressed in fractions of a pixel, so it might be possible to get better than, say, 1024. I just don't know how much better. But twice as much as the pixel resolution might be good enough.
post #11 of 11

I understand this is dated somewhat but I think it is important to add to this.

 

First off, Mr. Me... You are DEAD WRONG. Pixel Resolution is totally irrelevant. Right down to the basic fact that you don't have a clue about how capacitance touch screen works. It comes from the development of capacitance 'touch sensors'.

 

First off, iPad touch screen isn't much different than the iPhone and iPod touch. It certainly something that may vary slightly from model to model but bottom line:

 

This would help a little bit to bring it to laymen terms:

http://www.howstuffworks.com/ipod-touch2.htm

 

This is founded on touchscreen technology dating back to the 1970s.

 

Now, the touch screen resolution is probably about the same lines and columns per inch. It is important to note that Wacom uses a different type of technology then the iPad/iPod. The capacitance touch screen technology kind of measures the capacitance of several transparent "touch buttons" aka 'electrodes' at each intersection of the horizontal and vertical lines of transparent conductive compound/ink or whatever. Since the human finger is essentially touching a bunch of these 'touch button' / 'electrode intersection' or electrodes (at times) at any given time. In this message, I may say 'electrodes' but do mean particularly the electrode intersection. Keep in mind that. I am referring to the X & Y intersection of the columns/rows lines. It can calculate your relative pixel location through a math equation / algorithm that computes the center point of your finger from the center of the capacitance 'bubble' based on the values from each of the electrodes where your finger effects the capacitance of the field. There is usually about a 1" bubble that your finger presses. Then it calculates the center because closer to the center point of your finger's contact point, the higher the capacitance and that location usually but not always. 

 

I suspect that the resolution of the touch sensor is probably closer to 5 to 10 lines or columns per inch in the 1st gen iPad. A far cry from say.... 132ppi on iPad or the 5080 lines per inch of Wacom intuos. Due to the analog nature of the capacitance field, I could very well through read values read from each 'electrode' point (after it runs through analog to digital conversion), I could still plot a 'center-point' to relative pixel location(s) that are in between the lines and columns.  This gives you the illusion of a touch resolution equal to that of the display resolution. Even though it is not technically so.

 

Keep in mind also that is it not unusual to be zooming in with various graphic art programs and just about any program on the iPad. Just because you can pixel edit on an iPad via "ZOOMING" which is no different than doing the same thing on a Commodore 64. Even though I could edit per pixel without zoom on a C64 but sometimes zoom made it easier to see the pixel by using a 64x zoom (using an 8x8 character cell to represent one pixel). The iPad graphic software by zooming in is doing essentially the same thing.... using several actual pixels of the screen display to represent a pixel of the digital bitmap/image. The touch layer of the display screen is not the resolution as the LCD display itself. 

 

On the third page of this pdf (pg. 18): 

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph250/lee2/docs/art6.pdf

 

It tells you the original iPod touch resolution. The original iPad would be about the same. I suspect that newer models may have some improvement in that. I doubt anything quite like 100+ columns or rows per inch touch resolution. 


Edited by RickAstoria - 10/13/13 at 1:32pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Touch Resolution (Lines Per Inch)