or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple unveils redesigned, thinner iPhone 4 with two cameras
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple unveils redesigned, thinner iPhone 4 with two cameras - Page 10

post #361 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I can second that from my own experiences in that industry since 1969.

You got me there. I wasn't able to watch Sky King because there was too much snow on the tv set and the humming noise was either audio feedback or the sound of the engines, it was hard to tell.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #362 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

You got me there. I wasn't able to watch Sky King because there was to much snow on the tv set and the humming noise was either audio feedback or the sound of the engines, it was hard to tell.

You aren't nearly as funny as you think you are, and you still haven't responded.

And Sky King was a good show, though I barely remember it.
post #363 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerseymac View Post

Why in the world would you have done that to someone who is speaking the truth?

Definition of a fanboi right here... Talk about missing the context!
post #364 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

The other way to look at it is that Apples exclusive agreement with AT&T is disgraceful and they ned to be held accountable when and where ever possible. It is that old phrase " you made your bed now lay in it".

Really? A bit of hyperbole their, no?

Without AT&T's blind (literally!) trust in Apple there would be no iPhone. We know this because Verizon admitted they passed on it first, and still continue to do so.

There would be no Android, Pre, or Verizon wi-fi enabled Blackberry were it not for AT&T's willingness to work with Apple. We would still be working under the anacharist model of phones being developed for the phone companies instead of end users.

Whether you like them or not, for whatever reasons, you should at least respect them for the extremely significant role they played in getting all smartphone users to where we are today.

For those who continue to have difficulty in understanding Apple sticking with and supporting AT&T, you really need to think about the above
post #365 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

Sprint even tells people to turn the 4g radio off if they are out of coverage. I think they shouldn't have to, but the technology isn't there yet to detect and automatically toggle.

GPS and a database?

It's not technology, but a lack of focus on the end user experience.

What's the saying - don't confuse stupidity with laziness?
post #366 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

What I'm surprised at is that they don't have a private WiFi station there just for the demos.

They probably did but there is only so much radio spectrum . It looks like interference did them in.

What this means is there will be new restrictions on what is allowed in the in hall next year. Hopefully they will start streaming the keynotes live again and this whole live blogging thing will be once again moot.

Otherwise the outcry will be epic
post #367 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

Curious how the iPhone now has a far superior display to the iPad. Why wasn't the iPad granted a 'retina' display?

Cost and availability? It's far easier and cheaper to make a small technically complex display - effective yield rates are much higher as a bad section affects fewer whole displays. I have no doubt economies of scale and improvements in production techniques fostered by the new iPhone will eventually transfer to the iPad.

And I'm sure exclusive agreements with manufacturers will maintain those Apple funded advancements as an Apple exclusive. Well, until the next leapfrog in tech

Quote:
Also why no 64gb option? The iPod Touch has had that for ages now. 32gb seems awfully small these days.

I too was very disappointed in that. Now I'm seriously considering waiting to see if there is a six month bump with a 64 GB option
post #368 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It would seem as thought they would just pick the channels they wanted to use, and lock them from other use. That should solve the problem.

Huh? If I have a mifi, Android phone or jail broken iPhone, how is Apple supposed to prevent me from using a channel? I'm broadcasting too..
post #369 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerseymac View Post

That is what I think. Honestly.

I think until a deal with Verizon makes sense for Apple you can put what you want in one hand an poo in another and see what fills up first
post #370 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I'm not a programmer any more, but there are ways of binding a device. I can't say how, exactly, but it has to do with passwording the system.

How do you password the device in my pocket that is broadcasting?

Again, expect restrictions on devices (metal detectors and strip searches?) before next year. Or hopefully they will just stream the $&?!@ keynote live again
post #371 of 508
The first ever right move in digital photography I've been waiting for since years... Way to go Apple.

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #372 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by success View Post

Meaning 'Google like' conversation? That's BS. Many people have been requesting for this feature for ages. The reason why it's needed it because many people use POP accounts.

Isn't that kind of like complaining you don't have a mouse in DOS?

Seriously, I know people still use POP, but why should I have sympathy for them? Almost as bad as a complaint I saw on another forum that a person couldn't secure WEP - well duh, it's old and broken
post #373 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It does have a delete a thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by success View Post

Meaning 'Google like' conversation? That's BS.

That is BS. Are there really people out there who think Google invented threading? That would explain a lot.
post #374 of 508
Bowser, at a guess you are a first year grad student, very likely you have some links with UC Berkely and you do some TA to help you pay the bills. You have been told about the dean (Levi) been in the Guinness book of records for having (in his youth) the best vernier acuity recorded. Everybody in Berkley is told that the day they arrive.

You are right, about Vernier acuity being just a very specific (almost irrelevant) case, in which brain processing helps. For normal tasks like reading, watching videos, or playing on a computer screen, vernier acuity is irrelevant. What maters is normal visual acuity.

As a vision grad student (and teacher!) you should also understand the concept of visual angle. The minimum resolution the normal human eye can see is about 1.5 minutes of arc. This with a typical eye of 21mm length, matches about the foveal photoreceptor size of 1 to 1.5microns. At a distance of 20-30cm (normal near point of well corrected subject) 1.5 minute of arc corresponds closely to about 300dpi. That is what the "retina" display means. Nothing else. And that is why the 300dpi standard is in place.

Also, you should as a vision sciences teacher know that detailed vision only happens at the fovea, which is only about 300 microns. In the rod free area (very centre of the fovea, and what is used for reading and recognising faces) there are no more than 20,000 cones. In total the fovea has some 200,000 cones. So at 300dpi at 2in X2 in square has 360,000 dots. More than your fovea can cope with.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowser View Post

I teach vision science in a major California, university, the claims about this display are patently false.

First, I'll overlook the claim about what the human retina can display, that's just wrong. The retina doesn't display anything, it's not a projector. Rather, it is an information gather device that has light projected on to it. It's nothing like a display at all. And, even if SJ meant display as in a projection screen, which is only partially correct, it doesn't change facts about the acuity of human visual perception.

The human retina is actually capable of picking up details finer than the width of a human photoreceptor itself. This is sometimes measured with what's called vernier acuity, the ability to detect if two lines are offset from one another.

Further, there are literally BILLIONS of receptors in the retina, with MILLIONS in a linear inch. There is no way a display of 326 ppi is higher resolution than the millions of receptors in a linear inch in the retina.

I'm very saddened to see this misrepresentation of the capabilities of the display in the new iPhone. It will only give the trolls food.
post #375 of 508
Deleted. See next post
post #376 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowser View Post

This size (8 arcmin.) is about 40% the size of a cone receptor at 16 ft.

A foveal cone is 2 microns. Take a 21mm length eye... you have

q=2/21000 = 9.5e-5rads = 0.3arcmin = 18arc seconds

8 arcmin is about the size 24 cones! Not 40% of one.

I just read you post about your PhD in Santa Cruz... Don't they teach you elementary trigonometry there?
post #377 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Huh? If I have a mifi, Android phone or jail broken iPhone, how is Apple supposed to prevent me from using a channel? I'm broadcasting too..

For $25 I'm tempted to get one for when I'm at the movies:

http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.4355

But not too tempted since it's illegal and if the FCC ever gets terribly annoyed they can fine you for $11K and throw you in jail for a year as an example...
post #378 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01 View Post

The first ever right move in digital photography I've been waiting for since years... Way to go Apple.

Seriously...missing the old Fujis with decent low light in a compact...
post #379 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowser View Post


Yes, I am familiar with that work, I earned a PhD in Perceptual Psychology with an emphasis on visual attention, psychophysics, and physiological psychology at UC Santa Cruz. I now teach Perception at another UC campus now.

But your understanding of optics, and geometry don't help you. As I have pointed out in my previous posts, there are a number of factual mistakes in your arguments that undermine your credibility.

While you are correct in your assertions about the vernier acuity, the numbers you provide are wrong, the figure of 8minarc is baseless and wrong. Photoreceptors are much smaller than that!

Vernier acuity is a very interesting topic, and it has its applications. Reading and playing games is not one of them. But correct me please.

The limits of normal human vision (every day tasks) is set by the arrangement of retinal cones, but most importantly the size of the PSF on the retina. The combination of these 2 factors gives you the standard 300dpi. If a PhD in visual perception did not give you the background needed to understand this very basic concept, and being able to differentiate between normal every day activities, and super-resolution in specialised tasks like vernier acuity, you PhD training left many holes behind, that will have to be filled in over the years.
post #380 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by calguy View Post

Hard to believe but I don't have an iPhone yet, BUT I am on Verizon -

Can you buy the iOS 4 phone and not hook up with AT&T and then only use it on WiFi?
I know they would add mucho $ to the price. I like all the new features-5MP cam, HD video, etc. But, I don't need AT&T since my reception is bad anyway at my home.

Is this possible?

Your best bet on this would probably be eBay or Craig's List in a couple weeks. I'm sure you'll be able to get a gently used 3GS that would run iOS 4 then, or are you specifically looking for the iPhone 4 hardware. The other option would be to wait for the iPod Touch update in a few more months, but there again you may be missing some features/functionality you can only get with iPhone 4 hardware. Just a couple thoughts.

Oops... About the time I hit submit I caught the line I read over where you were specifying the iPhone 4 hardware features as being what you liked. Oh well.
post #381 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregoriusM View Post

I haven't read a single post in this thread, but will go back and do so, so this may already have been mentioned.

On the Apple.com website, it reads:

"
While most phones have only one microphone, iPhone 4 has two. The main mic, located on the bottom next to the speakers, is for phone and FaceTime calls, voice commands, and memos. The second mic, built into the top near the headphone jack, is for making your phone and video calls better. It works with the main mic to suppress unwanted and distracting background sounds, such as music and loud conversations. This dual-mic noise suppression helps make every conversation a quiet one."

Notice it says the main mic is place near the "speakers".

Does anyone know if another speaker has been added, either near where the mic is, or internally similar to the way the iPod touch has it?

Greg

Dual mics are for noise cancellation. Just like on the Nexus One. So why would they add another speaker?
post #382 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowser View Post

The fact is we are able to distinguish details down to 8 arcminutes at 16 feet. And just so you know, that is 40% of the size of a human cone photoreceptor.

How does 8 arcminutes at 16 feet compare to the other claim:

"Maybe you'd like to source some research that says the retina can pick out detail higher than 326 ppi at 10 inches away before making nonsensical arguments."

I assume that the paper shows greater acuity is possible than 326 PPI at 10 inches, but I can't convert the two.
post #383 of 508
The brain also plays a huge roll in perceivable resolution. Our eyes jitter and then the brain reassembles the input into coherent imagery. The jittering is actually advantageous though. It allows perception of detail smaller than the size of the receptor. For instance, lines thinner than a single receptor can still be seen.

(Or at least that is my recollection of something I might have read somewhere years ago maybe.)
post #384 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

The brain also plays a huge roll in perceivable resolution. Our eyes jitter and then the brain reassembles the input into coherent imagery. The jittering is actually advantageous though. It allows perception of detail smaller than the size of the receptor. For instance, lines thinner than a single receptor can still be seen.

(Or at least that is my recollection of something I might have read somewhere years ago maybe.)

Yes, that's correct. But the size of the optical blur on the retina is about 4microns, which is about 2 to 4 photoreceptors on the fovea. In this sense the jitter helps enormoulsy to improve resolution. In the special case of Vernier acuity, it does wonders. But the 300 dpi is the optimal for everyday tasks.

Vernier acuity means aligning to vertical lines with each other. So if you are doing somer vernier readings (callipers) then that is really good. Apart from that, perhaps when passing thread in a needle eye... Not helpful on small screen, I think.
post #385 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowser View Post

. I would also recommend as starters, "Sensation and Perception" 5th. ed. by Harvey Richard Schiffman, "Vision Science, photons to phenomenology" by Stephen Palmer, and "Foundations of Vision" by Brian A. Wandell, and "Visual Perception, a clinical orientation" by Steven H. Schwartz.


A million years ago when I took Introduction to Psychology in college, we read "Eye and Brain" by an author I can't remember.

Is that still a standard text? Has it been updated? Is much of what (everything?) I learned there wrong? Or are the basics still agreed upon, with new research refining the 1970's conclusions?

If you could recommend a single layman's/college kid's text for me to read with current research on the subject, I'd appreciate it. I remember being fascinated by the subject of eye/nerve physiology vs. brain interpretation.
post #386 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by daylove22 View Post

Video calling now a reality...wow FaceTime

Better late than never, a reality since 2006 for some Nokia users...
post #387 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Considering that as contrast goes down, we lose acuity quickly, even the paper by Levi shows that, we have to know what contrast levels we are talking about. This is well known photographically, which is why lenses are characterized at differing contrast levels.


How are " lenses ... characterized at differing contrast levels"?

What units of characterization are used? All I am familiar with is the maximum f-stop rating, which does not use contrast as a factor.
post #388 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by iStud View Post

Yes, that's correct. But the size of the optical blur on the retina is about 4microns, which is about 2 to 4 photoreceptors on the fovea. In this sense the jitter helps enormoulsy to improve resolution. In the special case of Vernier acuity, it does wonders. But the 300 dpi is the optimal for everyday tasks.

Vernier acuity means aligning to vertical lines with each other. So if you are doing somer vernier readings (callipers) then that is really good. Apart from that, perhaps when passing thread in a needle eye... Not helpful on small screen, I think.

Thank you iStud, and others for correcting Mr. 'vernier acuity' Bowser. I was annoyed at his 'patently false' claim, particularly since as a long time screen user in late 40's i can only just read most small text as it is. Already the iphone (3), images looks incredible, so increasing resolution 4 fold, must surely take resolution to a point where few (o.1% of the population could discern any pixellation.
I tried basic trig, based on 8 arc seconds, for a handheld device at 20 inches - seems like the claims are not patently false.
post #389 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I think they use Windows NT don't they?

The space shuttle use IBM's AP-101s avionics computers.
post #390 of 508
All of a sudden I'm taking a closer look at all the 300dpi printers scattered around my office. We use various zebra direct thermal printers to print labels for use in inventory and manufacturing.

While I can definitely see jaggies on printed text at 300dpi, this is mostly because these thermal transfer printer are not grayscale. For an individual pixel, they can only do 100% black or clear. Also, printed pixels are more distinct than lcd pixels because there is no bleed through between adjacent pixels.

This isn't meant as criticism or to say that a 300dpi display is insufficient. Rather, just a few random thoughts on dpi. Personally, I can't wait to take delivery of the new iPhone.
post #391 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

All of a sudden I'm taking a closer look at all the 300dpi printers scattered around my office. We use various zebra direct thermal printers to print labels for use in inventory and manufacturing.

While I can definitely see jaggies on printed text at 300dpi, this is mostly because these thermal transfer printer are not grayscale. For an individual pixel, they can only do 100% black or clear. Also, printed pixels are more distinct than lcd pixels because there is no bleed through between adjacent pixels.

This isn't meant as criticism or to say that a 300dpi display is insufficient. Rather, just a few random thoughts on dpi. Personally, I can't wait to take delivery of the new iPhone.

A 300dpi printer, has alternate 150dpi rows half a point displaced from each other. This corrects from jitter during printing. So the actual resolution you get 150dpi, not 300dpi as you would get from a display. That's why you see lower quality in "equivalent" prints
post #392 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

No one makes a 64GB phone. You actually going to spend $300 on a 32GB micro SD card?

Huh, you can find them around $90, and their price will keep falling... Dunno how you invented that $300 price...

With this in mind the $100 difference of price between the iPhone 4 16GB and its 32GB version, i.e. $100 for an addition of 16GB, is really a scam.
post #393 of 508
deleted
post #394 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi View Post

Better late than never, a reality since 2006 for some Nokia users...

Wow, that's late. My NEC had it in 2005, and I think that model originally came out in late '04. Though i daresay the experience on Nokias was equally as unsatisfactory - small screen, poor picture and stream quality, massive data costs.

Seems like it might actually be a usable feature on the iPhone.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #395 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by iStud View Post

But your understanding of optics, and geometry don't help you. As I have pointed out in my previous posts, there are a number of factual mistakes in your arguments that undermine your credibility.

While you are correct in your assertions about the vernier acuity, the numbers you provide are wrong, the figure of 8minarc is baseless and wrong. Photoreceptors are much smaller than that!

Vernier acuity is a very interesting topic, and it has its applications. Reading and playing games is not one of them. But correct me please.

The limits of normal human vision (every day tasks) is set by the arrangement of retinal cones, but most importantly the size of the PSF on the retina. The combination of these 2 factors gives you the standard 300dpi. If a PhD in visual perception did not give you the background needed to understand this very basic concept, and being able to differentiate between normal every day activities, and super-resolution in specialised tasks like vernier acuity, you PhD training left many holes behind, that will have to be filled in over the years.


How about we stop the ad hominems and arguments about vernier acuity and talk about the IPHONE? Hmm?

Looks great. I'm upgrading.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #396 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Right_said_fred View Post

Thank you iStud, and others for correcting Mr. 'vernier acuity' Bowser. I was annoyed at his 'patently false' claim, particularly since as a long time screen user in late 40's i can only just read most small text as it is. Already the iphone (3), images looks incredible, so increasing resolution 4 fold, must surely take resolution to a point where few (o.1% of the population could discern any pixellation.
I tried basic trig, based on 8 arc seconds, for a handheld device at 20 inches - seems like the claims are not patently false.

Of course is not patently false.. Try it with 1 arcminute and 12 inches away.
post #397 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

How about we stop the ad hominems and arguments about vernier acuity and talk about the IPHONE? Hmm?

Looks great. I'm upgrading.

Good point. the argument arose because this guy said that the 300dpi being the optimal resolution of display was "patently false" due to his vernier acuity PhD...

the point was to show the statement about resolution during the keynote was correct.

It is about the iPhone after all. At least an aspect of it. Not just its specs.
post #398 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by iStud View Post

A 300dpi printer, has alternate 150dpi rows half a point displaced from each other. This corrects from jitter during printing. So the actual resolution you get 150dpi, not 300dpi as you would get from a display. That's why you see lower quality in "equivalent" prints

Good point, but in my mind that is still 300dpi. Perhaps what you're referring to is the fact that pixels are slightly over-sized such that there is no screen door effect, especially when accounting for slop in the media feed speed.

I see this as reinforcing the notion that 300dpi is a sufficiently high resolution for almost all uses of an LCD. It should definitely look better than a 300dpi 1-bit printer. One of the main reasons for ludicrously high dpi printers is so that they can do imperceptible dithering.
post #399 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

Good point, but in my mind that is still 300dpi. Perhaps what you're referring to is the fact that pixels are slightly over-sized such that there is no screen door effect, especially when accounting for slop in the media feed speed.

I see this as reinforcing the notion that 300dpi is a sufficiently high resolution for almost all uses of an LCD. It should definitely look better than a 300dpi 1-bit printer. One of the main reasons for ludicrously high dpi printers is so that they can do imperceptible dithering.

Agreed.
post #400 of 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by iStud View Post

Agreed.

Wow and this is why I love Mac forums--learning random crap like how the eye works. Thanks iStud, dfiler, Bowser for starting the discussion. Very relevant to the iPhone! Great stuff! Makes me even more excited to get the iPhone 4, sounds like the screen really is the best out there and the best an eye could possibly see. Sweet!
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple unveils redesigned, thinner iPhone 4 with two cameras