or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's iPhone 4 "Retina" display claims spark controversy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's iPhone 4 "Retina" display claims spark controversy - Page 3

post #81 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Had Steve simply said that, there would be no controversy.

Apple always has to name their version of whatever technology, just like in Magic Mouse.

He should have just said it is a beautiful thing to behold and we call it 'Retina' and left it at that. They never said their mouse actually performed any magic. But he had to open up a can of worms with his sudo-scientific explanation. Some people, like Steve, are nearsighted and hold it close to their eyes and others are farsighted, like me, and I hold it as far away as I can. Everybody is different. I'm sure the screen will impress nearly everyone once they get their hands on one.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #82 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Please stop reading my posts.

OK, Stevie is, beyond almost all doubt, the one, the only, the original, wait for it... tekstud!

He's the only troll I can recall who uses that specific phrase.
post #83 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Underhill View Post

The competition is heating up.

I wonder how advanced Apple's new process, in order to make this display, is. Curious to know how much investment and time would be required in order for the competition to replicate or improve on it.

Any experts out there have a clue on this?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Apple isn't the one that actually makes the display itself. If that's the case, then I'd say it won't be too long before it starts showing up in the competition.
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
post #84 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

OK, Stevie is, beyond almost all doubt, the one, the only, the original, wait for it... tekstud!

Wrong. Yet again.
post #85 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by rorybalmer View Post

Who do you think is creating this technology for Apple and providing these specs?? Bloggers?? This was made by scientists and technological engineers. It's also being disputed by a scientist, but one who happens to work for the competition, NOT an impartial one. His analysis is worthless.


Specs? That's comedy. Saying a display is so hi-rez that the human eye can't see more detail anyway is not a spec, it's marketing hyperbole, and it's no surprise to find it challenged.

Are you saying apple's "scientists" who spin positive rhetoric about the new iPhone are irrefutable, but anyone challenging the claims must automatically be a fraud? Comon.
post #86 of 179
FWIW:

http://www.medgadget.com/archives/20...s_it_mean.html

Anyway, I don't think it matters. It's the best display on a mobile phone to date. That makes it good enough, regardless of whether it's a true retina display or not.
post #87 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Wrong. Yet again.

I think not, tek.
post #88 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccherry View Post

When the iPhone 4 drops it will sell like oxcoton crack cookies.HTC can boast an 8 mega pix camera and a big screen. That is all. Apple has the support,the ecosystem etc. Apple has thier own OS. Therefore Apple can do anything with the iPhone without restrictions.iPhone is a seamless masterpiece.
HTC can take a Hike.
IT
Wait until the 2nd generation ipad comes out.
OMG!

"oxycoton crack cookies"...LMAO that made my day but true, this new iPhone is gonna make all the others out there look so last year....
post #89 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I think not, tek.

Your thoughts and the facts diverge to point of being distinct.
post #90 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Your thoughts and the facts diverge to point of being distinct.

Hey, you slipped up and used one of your stock phrases. You had a good run, but now you're exposed.

Unless I've confused you with our other fiend, iGenius, but you are definitely outed as one or the other.
post #91 of 179
Hey, I can see Russia from my iPhone!
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #92 of 179
As far as hardware is concerned, I've never seen a piece of crap put out by Apple. Now, I can't say the same for Samsung, Motorola, or HTC.
post #93 of 179
Apple gets nothing but hurt for creating the highest ppi for mobile devises, so what happens when Microsoft creates a bogus display technology? They get showered with awards!

ClearType was created through an extremely complex and scientific procedure. Over the course of two years, Microsoft researchers studied typography and the psychology of reading in order to create ClearType.
post #94 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by EauVive View Post

The angular resolution of the eye is 1', that is to say 1 mm at 3 m (or 100 km on the Moon).
A 300 dpi display means each pixel is 25.4/300 = 84.7 µm.
So this corresponds to the angular resolution of the eye at 3 * 0.0847 = 0.254 m or 25.4 cm (10 ").

BINGO !

Simple calculation. Simple Answer.

And the bonus is that it is pretty much correct.

(Only adjustment is 1 minute is more like 3,438 to 1, rather than 3,000 to 1. Which results in 11.5" instead of 10".... But the 1 minute is an approximation anyway. It's in the freakin' ball park....)
post #95 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by BC Kelly View Post

.

Sounds similar to claims made by Audio Experts about Fidelity in Stereo Systems

Which, like this, is useless since most Folks can't hear worth a damn, and are blind
.

But know this much is True

We can all "see" the iPhone has the Wannabes scared chitless

Even with no pixels per inch



.

That's right to the point. First, "HiFi" was introduced as a war of stats, and the higher (or lower) numbers were held to be all-important. "Mine's got 20000 Hz.!" is a good example. Thing is, almost no people can hear 20,000 Hz, particularly if you've gone to a few loud rock concerts in your youth, after about 30 years old.

Objectively, it's true, I presume, that the retina can resolve to another 100 pixels or so. But most eyes cannot. For a long time, printers have regarded the line of 300 dpi to be where pixels/dots disappear. That's the crucial thing. At 366 dpi, only the very most acute instruments can detect the dots. In a lab.

Meanwhile, theoretically, mp3s sound like crap. The golden-eared people with expensive "hifis" will be able to detect, through their $20,000 speakers and fancy metal connectors ($20,000) that there is a difference. Meanwhile, the world prefers digital files because they're tiny and transportable, and most cannot tell the difference.
post #96 of 179
Well, if we're actually going to take this pixel-picking click bait seriously...

"...18 inches from the eye, much farther than standard use for a mobile handset."

Curious, I picked up both my handheld and a tape measure, repeatedly, standing, sitting, walking... Invariably, I hold mine somewhere between 15"-22" from my face. Of course this is asinine, but good for a laugh. Try holding an object 12" from your eyes and reading 9 pt type.
post #97 of 179
this is the first time i've heard of Soniera.. so I can't speak to his qualifications, but I know badastronomer is a really smart dude.

and by the way.. this really is waaaaay to much math to be doing to determine whether or not the screen looks good. I don't care what it says on paper.. does it look better than the one I have now? yes or no is all i need to know. I don't necessarily care how or why

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...ne-resolution/

So what does all this mean for the iPhone? First, here are the claims.

Jobs claims the iPhone held at 12 inches from your face has pixels too small to be resolved by your eye. Soneira, the display expert quoted in the magazine articles, disputes that. He uses the 0.6 arcmin resolution for the human eye (so we use the scale factor = 5730). Let’s use that and run the numbers.

Something 12 inches away means your eye can resolve dots that are bigger than

12 inches / 5730 = 0.0021 inches

So if the pixels on the iPhone are smaller than 0.0021 inches in size, then Jobs is right. Your eye won’t resolve them. If the pixels are bigger, Soneira is right, and your eye can resolve them.

The actual iPhone 4 has 326 pixels per inch (the display is 960 pixels high, and about 2.9 inches in length). You have to flip that to get the size of the pixel in inches:

1 / 326 = 0.0031 inches

Uh oh! Things look bad for Jobs. The iPhone pixels are too big! At one foot away, your eye can resolve the pixels, and Jobs must be lying!

Or is he? Remember, Soneira used the 0.6 arcmin resolution of the eye, but that’s for perfect eyesight. Most people don’t have perfect eyesight. I sure don’t. A better number for a typical person is more like 1 arcmin resolution, not 0.6. In fact, Wikipedia lists 20/20 vision as being 1 arcmin, so there you go.

If I use 1 arcminute instead, the scale factor is smaller, about 3438. So let’s convert that to inches to see how small a pixel the human eye can resolve at a distance of one foot:

12 inches / 3438 = 0.0035 inches

Aha! This means that to a more average eye, pixels smaller than this are unresolved. Since the iPhone’s pixels are 0.0031 inches on a side, it works! Jobs is actually correct.

[Note: in the articles about all this, they used units of pixels per inch, whereas I've used the size of the pixels themselves. You can flip all these numbers to convert. The iPhone4 has a resolution of 326 ppi (pixels per inch). Soleira says the eye can resolve 1 / 0.0021 = 477 ppi. However, normal vision can see at 1 / 0.0035 = 286 ppi. So the density of pixels in the iPhone 4 is safely higher than can be resolved by the normal eye, but lower than what can be resolved by someone with perfect vision.]
post #98 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpcg View Post

Another question:

Has Apple an exclusive right to implement those screens? Otherwise there will be similar (LG) Android phones soon.

Good question. The Evo 4G is a TFT display and those AMOLED displays are using a quasi-pixel count. I wonder if iSuppli is going to have an accurate cost of the iPhone 4's display.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Apple always has to name their version of whatever technology, just like in Magic Mouse.

He should have just said it is a beautiful thing to behold and we call it 'Retina' and left it at that. They never said their mouse actually performed any magic. But he had to open up a can of worms with his sudo-scientific explanation. Some people, like Steve, are nearsighted and hold it close to their eyes and others are farsighted, like me, and I hold it as far away as I can. Everybody is different. I'm sure the screen will impress nearly everyone once they get their hands on one.

Apple is well managed and makes great products, but they really do know how to market themselves better than anyone else. I've been tired of the OLED buzzword since it came out. They are great in certain areas but they fail in some others that they are a bad choice for mobiles, yet it's highly marketable. Jobs came on stage and completely trounced OLED with an entirely new marketing buzzword.

The fact that it's being debated at all by "scientistis" is a testament to their marketing prowess. The bottom line is that the iPhone 4 will have an (actual) 326 ppi IPS display that is better than anything else on the market. Even those scientists that say Jobs wasn't accurate about what the eye can see have to be impressed with the display on the next iPhone and that's all that really matters in the end.


Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

OK, Stevie is, beyond almost all doubt, the one, the only, the original, wait for it... tekstud!

He's the only troll I can recall who uses that specific phrase.

I thought it was iGenius.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #99 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkmage View Post

[...]

Aha! This means that to a more average eye, pixels smaller than this are unresolved. Since the iPhones pixels are 0.0031 inches on a side, it works! Jobs is actually correct.

[...]

This type of data has been posted all over the nets all week, but this is the first time I truly understood it. Thanks!
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #100 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobborries View Post

Apple gets nothing but hurt for creating the highest ppi for mobile devises, so what happens when Microsoft creates a bogus display technology? They get showered with awards!

ClearType was created through an extremely complex and scientific procedure. Over the course of two years, Microsoft researchers studied typography and the psychology of reading in order to create ClearType.

Showered with awards? Where? I only found *one* obscure award MS got for ClearType, back in 1999. It's no panacea, but don't think it's a bogus technology, it was noticeably clearer than full-pixel anti-aliasing. Not sure why you brought Microsoft and ClearType up, I didn't see anyone talk about those before or in the article. Besides, technology wasn't ready for affordable ultra-high dpis until now, and desktop/notebook computers still aren't there yet, Apple still hasn't rolled out full resolution independence on the Macs, nor has any other desktop OS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift View Post

At 366 dpi, only the very most acute instruments can detect the dots. In a lab.

I don't know where you get that, that sounds like you're blowing smoke. I've had ordinary consumer scanners clearly resolve thousands of lines per inch, the fibers of the paper can look like logs. The best optical microscope can read down to 0.2 μm, I think that translates down to about 128,000dpi. Some types of lab equipment can detect atoms, which is far smaller.
post #101 of 179
Who cares about the retina display when tekstud is back in the forums!!!!!!!
post #102 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkmage View Post

Jobs claims the iPhone held at 12 inches from your face has pixels too small to be resolved by your eye. Soneira, the display expert quoted in the magazine articles, disputes that. He uses the 0.6 arcmin resolution for the human eye (so we use the scale factor = 5730). Lets use that and run the numbers.

Strictly speaking, I think the presentation slide got the terms wrong, The slide at the presentation says 300 is the limit of the retina, when it should have been more specifically identified as an eye that can see 20/20. It sounds like Soneira was quoting retina numbers, and the figure used on the presentation should have been a little more specific on the whole eye system (the lens being the likely limiting factor), though they might have been trying to justify calling it a "Retina Display".
post #103 of 179
Set up an iPhone 4 so it is viewed from 12".

Display a 100x100 image on the screen.

Remove some pixels.

Repeat a few times to reduce the possibility of random guesses

Dr. Raymond Soneira should easily be able to count the missing pixels if what he contends is true.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #104 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyctree View Post

who the heck holds their phone just 12" from their eye. 18-20 more likey, so IT IS A RETINA DISPLAY

Those that have even worse eyesight hold it 12 inches from their eyes. Who is this "expert" anyway? Sounds like someone that needs a hug.
post #105 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Set up an iPhone 4 so it is viewed from 12".

Display a 100x100 image on the screen.

Remove some pixels.

Repeat a few times to reduce the possibility of random guesses

Dr. Raymond Soneira should easily be able to count the missing pixels if what he contends is true.

I did something like that, 36" and 48" measured using a tape measure, from a 100ppi screen, making it roughly equivalent to 300 and 400ppi at 12". I could still see the dots at both distance, it was pushing it though on the farther distance. That still makes me more excited to try this screen. Hopefully it pushes the computer display industry to denser screens, and hopefully the OS makers can get off their collective asses and get resolution independence into prime time.
post #106 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkmage View Post

this is the first time i've heard of Soniera.. so I can't speak to his qualifications, but I know badastronomer is a really smart dude.

and by the way.. this really is waaaaay to much math to be doing to determine whether or not the screen looks good. I don't care what it says on paper.. does it look better than the one I have now? yes or no is all i need to know. I don't necessarily care how or why

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...ne-resolution/

So what does all this mean for the iPhone? First, here are the claims.

Jobs claims the iPhone held at 12 inches from your face has pixels too small to be resolved by your eye. Soneira, the display expert quoted in the magazine articles, disputes that. He uses the 0.6 arcmin resolution for the human eye (so we use the scale factor = 5730). Lets use that and run the numbers.

Something 12 inches away means your eye can resolve dots that are bigger than

12 inches / 5730 = 0.0021 inches

So if the pixels on the iPhone are smaller than 0.0021 inches in size, then Jobs is right. Your eye wont resolve them. If the pixels are bigger, Soneira is right, and your eye can resolve them.

The actual iPhone 4 has 326 pixels per inch (the display is 960 pixels high, and about 2.9 inches in length). You have to flip that to get the size of the pixel in inches:

1 / 326 = 0.0031 inches

Uh oh! Things look bad for Jobs. The iPhone pixels are too big! At one foot away, your eye can resolve the pixels, and Jobs must be lying!

Or is he? Remember, Soneira used the 0.6 arcmin resolution of the eye, but thats for perfect eyesight. Most people dont have perfect eyesight. I sure dont. A better number for a typical person is more like 1 arcmin resolution, not 0.6. In fact, Wikipedia lists 20/20 vision as being 1 arcmin, so there you go.

If I use 1 arcminute instead, the scale factor is smaller, about 3438. So lets convert that to inches to see how small a pixel the human eye can resolve at a distance of one foot:

12 inches / 3438 = 0.0035 inches

Aha! This means that to a more average eye, pixels smaller than this are unresolved. Since the iPhones pixels are 0.0031 inches on a side, it works! Jobs is actually correct.

[Note: in the articles about all this, they used units of pixels per inch, whereas I've used the size of the pixels themselves. You can flip all these numbers to convert. The iPhone4 has a resolution of 326 ppi (pixels per inch). Soleira says the eye can resolve 1 / 0.0021 = 477 ppi. However, normal vision can see at 1 / 0.0035 = 286 ppi. So the density of pixels in the iPhone 4 is safely higher than can be resolved by the normal eye, but lower than what can be resolved by someone with perfect vision.]

So, the scientist is using the best case scenario for calculation versus a normal case? Given what my wife, who is a researcher, tells me about scientific results in research are done, I am not surprised.
post #107 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I don't know where you get that, that sounds like you're blowing smoke. I've had ordinary consumer scanners clearly resolve thousands of lines per inch, the fibers of the paper can look like logs. The best optical microscope can read down to 0.2 μm, I think that translates down to about 128,000dpi. Some types of lab equipment can detect atoms, which is far smaller.

Even a simple hand-held magnifier will show the dots in the iPhone 4's display. It doesn't require anything fancy.

However, few people read their iPhones with even a simple magnifier. With the unaided eye, it's either impossible (if you have 20/20 vision or worse) or difficult (if you have much better vision than average) to see the pixels.

That's enough to say this is a great display.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #108 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyctree View Post

who the heck holds their phone just 12" from their eye. 18-20 more likey, so IT IS A RETINA DISPLAY

Well, I hold my iPhone around 20 cm from my eyes. Around 8". 20" would be around half a meter - no way.

But of course, I'm myopic ... and before I had an operation for it I would have had to hold it 10 cm from my eyes unless I had my contact lenses on ...

BTW, holding an iPhone half a meter away - don't you get tired in your arms?
post #109 of 179
This is starting to be a common thing from Apple, the half truth.
It's like:

"Macs are safer than PCs". Well, this is because Mac is a minor platform, so crackers are no interested on making virus for Mac, not because Mac is really safer than PCs.

"iPad is the best device to surf the web". How can it be the best device when many webs can be seen correctly due to the lack of Flash support??

"iPad lasts a day long". Well, here Apple redefines how log is a day.

And so on...
post #110 of 179
So we are in agreement that 326 ppi are smaller pixels than someone with 20/20 vision can differentiate at 12" away?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #111 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2 cents View Post

Yawn.

Nutrasweet causes temp. short term memory loss
French frys cause cancer
margerine is better for you
margerine is worse for you
don't sit too close to the tv

anyway, spoke to my dad the other day. He sounded fine. He was doing his walkibg rehab as he's still in the hospital.
Today he is moved to Winchester hospital ICU for yet another infection.
Guys. Girls. I just got married not to long ago. He has nit seen her as my wife or his daughter in law.
I am not working and have nit seen my family since 2004.

Please pray he gets well once and for all.
That he doesn't lose the rehab he put into it.
That he snd I can oneday go for a walk so I can tell him some things I've never told him and that this new joint venture I started that both two people want to be involved and that I can via GOD AND A MIRACLE get home to see my dad and family.
Thanks.
May it all come back to you. 100000000000 fold. Amen.
post #112 of 179
Some of you are missing the point entirely. People will be going to the Apple stores and and they will see a very nice display. They won't be counting pixels and measuring the distance. This geek trolling is really unnecessary.

Which of us is the fisherman and which the trout?

Reply

Which of us is the fisherman and which the trout?

Reply
post #113 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobborries View Post

Apple gets nothing but hurt for creating the highest ppi for mobile devises,


Naw, they are getting hurt for spouting pseudo-scientific nonsensical claims.
post #114 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift View Post

At 366 dpi, only the very most acute instruments can detect the dots. In a lab.


Are you sure about that? I have used 600 dpi printers since the late 1980's, and I can easily see the dots with my naked eye.
post #115 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbryanh View Post

Well, if we're actually going to take this pixel-picking click bait seriously...

"...18 inches from the eye, much farther than standard use for a mobile handset."

Curious, I picked up both my handheld and a tape measure, repeatedly, standing, sitting, walking... Invariably, I hold mine somewhere between 15"-22" from my face. Of course this is asinine, but good for a laugh. Try holding an object 12" from your eyes and reading 9 pt type.

Steve is the guy who claims that people hold the device 10 to 12 inches from the eye. You disputing him?
post #116 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Dr. Raymond Soneira should easily be able to count the missing pixels if what he contends is true.


Easily? I don't think that conclusion is borne out by what he wrote.
post #117 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by sambira View Post

Those that have even worse eyesight hold it 12 inches from their eyes. Who is this "expert" anyway? Sounds like someone that needs a hug.

Steve is the one who made the 12 inch claim.

This expert is the one who showed that the iPhone touch sensor is more accurate than the touchscreens on any other popular cellphone. He's kind of a hero in the iPhone world.
post #118 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

So we are in agreement that 326 ppi are smaller pixels than someone with 20/20 vision can differentiate at 12" away?

I don't think so.

"Soneira claims that the actual distinguishable resolution of the human retina is 477 ppi at a distance of 12 inches. "


ISTM that this is a matter of fact and not opinion.
post #119 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Are you sure about that? I have used 600 dpi printers since the late 1980's, and I can easily see the dots with my naked eye.

You just lost all credibility. The dots from a 600dpi printer overlap. The individual dots are about twice the size of 1/600 in across.
post #120 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

I don't think so.

"Soneira claims that the actual distinguishable resolution of the human retina is 477 ppi at a distance of 12 inches. "


ISTM that this is a matter of fact and not opinion.

then it comes down to which expert's analysis one chooses to accept.
"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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's iPhone 4 "Retina" display claims spark controversy