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

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.

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.

Definition of a fanboi right here... Talk about missing the context!

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

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?

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

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


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

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..

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

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

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

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

That is BS. Are there really people out there who think Google invented threading? That would explain a lot.

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.

Deleted. See next post

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?

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...

Seriously...missing the old Fujis with decent low light in a compact...

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.

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.

Dual mics are for noise cancellation. Just like on the Nexus One. So why would they add another speaker?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

The space shuttle use IBM's AP-101s avionics computers.

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

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.

deleted

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.

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

Looks great. I'm upgrading.

Of course is not patently false.. Try it with 1 arcminute and 12 inches away.

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.

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.

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!