or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Fox News' giant new Microsoft touch screens have fewer pixels than an iPad
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fox News' giant new Microsoft touch screens have fewer pixels than an iPad - Page 4

post #121 of 139

 

Quote:
Guess you've never used an iOS device and an AppleTV with Airplay. Not just mirroring. You can build apps that are full screen/full HD on the TV via Apple TV and have different content on the iPad.

 

The point is the 5S (and our family owns 3), does not have a top of the line display for a smart phone.  5S display is 1136-by-640-pixel resolution at 326 ppi. Not even 720p. 

Top line android smart phone like the one being ridiculed are 1920x1080 at 440 ppi. So why not write an article entitled"Iphone 5S:   Newest Apple phone touch screens have fewer pixels than Galaxy S4."

 

Apple products are great so are Android and some Windows devices.  So why does AI feel the need to always mock the competition. Fear of an open market with competent competitors?  This article was just silly.

post #122 of 139

Resolution issues aside, I can't help but laugh at the sight of these people dwarfed by these HUGE screens, pushing their digital tiles around with their little hands. In this mobile, 'wear it' or 'carry it' age, the sight of these humongous tablets is reminiscent of the gargantuan 'boats' the we called 'cars' back in the 50's and 60's. 

 

The fact that this is all happening on the slopes of 'Bullshit Mountain' is even more hilarious!

post #123 of 139

Aww! Poor rcfa...we get it! You're an atheist/pagan/witch doctor who doesn't believe in anything...blah, blah, blah....America sucks...blah, blah, blah...the Tea Party people are evil incarnate...blah, blah, blah...it's all Bush's fault...blah, blah, blah...mommy and daddy didn't love me...blah, blah, blah...you're intimidated by anyone who doesn't agree with your drivel and any ideology you don't understand...blah, blah, blah! You'd better get back to watching MSNBC now or they'll lose 10% of their viewing audience!

post #124 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordon Eagan View Post
 

Aww! Poor rcfa...we get it! You're an atheist/pagan/witch doctor who doesn't believe in anything...blah, blah, blah....America sucks...blah, blah, blah...the Tea Party people are evil incarnate...blah, blah, blah...it's all Bush's fault...blah, blah, blah...mommy and daddy didn't love me...blah, blah, blah...you're intimidated by anyone who doesn't agree with your drivel and any ideology you don't understand...blah, blah, blah! You'd better get back to watching MSNBC now or they'll lose 10% of their viewing audience!

 

You have one thing right in that above paragraph:

 

I don't believe in anything. - Believing is for stupid people.

People with brains know, don't know, hypothesize, theorize, conjecture, deliberate, but they don't "believe", because that entails accepting as true something of which you should know that you don't have sufficient evidence to prove it or know it; and only stupid people would do such a thing.

 

Among the things I don't believe in, is loyalty to any concept that has been created for the benefits of people exploiting a majority, that includes patriotism and fandom, regardless what flag or brand it wears. 

 

Good deeds do not need a flag, good deeds are humanist, not patriotic.

 

Patriotism, at best, is collective selfishness disguised as altruism, at worst, it's rampant stupidity whereby some people become tools such that evil people can enrich themselves. 

 

People who "believe" are weak, and need crutches to tolerate life.

 

The one who's intimidated is you, because running out of reason, you have to resort to (pretty bad attempt at) ridicule. If you try ridicule, at least be original and funny; don't just recite platitudes and stereotypes. It's not just stupid, worse, it's boring.

post #125 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by coelocanth View Post


The point is the 5S (and our family owns 3), does not have a top of the line display for a smart phone.  5S display is 1136-by-640-pixel resolution at 326 ppi. Not even 720p. 

Top line android smart phone like 
the one being ridiculed are 1920x1080 at 440 ppi. So why not write an article 
entitled
"Iphone 5S:   Newest Apple phone touch screens have fewer pixels than Galaxy S4."

So?

Apple's Retina Display offers all the resolution that your eyes can distinguish. There's no benefit to greater than retina resolution. There are, however, some disadvantages - poorer color and shorter battery life. Funny how the Android camp seems to confuse 'specs' with 'quality'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post

No, I'm not a Democrat (with capital D) although I'm a democrat (with lower-case d). The closest I come to being a Democrat is that I consider the Tea Party wing of the Republicans, which holds the entire party by its balls, to be a bunch of lunatics, meaning that the Republican party, as it exists today, is not electable, which leaves a rational person with the option to vote for the party that does the least possible damage given the realities on the ground, and that happens to be the Democratic party, thanks to a rather despicable two-party system that makes any democratically (lower case d) minded person cringe given how it dumbs down and limits political debate.

While I agree with much of what you say, the bolded part is wrong. With gerrymandering (look it up), a large fraction of incumbents on both sides of the aisle have a nearly unbreakable lock on their districts. Something like 25-30% of all Congressmen had >75% of the votes in the last election. Those people most certainly are electable - at least until hell freezes over.
"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 #126 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

So?

Apple's Retina Display offers all the resolution that your eyes can distinguish. There's no benefit to greater than retina resolution.

That 300ppi claim Mr. Jobs made for a "retina-quality" display was an approximation based on an average persons vision at normal viewing distances wasn't it? As I understand it eyes can perceive a quality improvement with even higher resolutions than the iPhone offers. DisplayMate would claim that 477ppi at 12 inches is needed before further benefits of a higher resolution smartphone display disappear.

"The resolution of the retina is in angular measure - it's 50 Cycles Per Degree," he wrote in an email. "A cycle is a line pair, which is two pixels, so the angular resolution of the eye is 0.6 arc minutes per pixel.
"So, if you hold an iPhone at the typical 12 inches from your eyes that works out to 477 pixels per inch," Soneira added. "At 8 inches it's 716 ppi. You have to hold it out 18 inches before it falls to 318 ppi. (Note: Measuring my own usage it looks like I typically hold my phone about 11 inches away)
"So the iPhone has significantly lower resolution than the retina," Soneira wrote. "It actually needs a resolution significantly higher than the retina in order to deliver an image that appears perfect to the retina."

No doubt that 300ppi is plenty good enough, but dismissing higher resolutions as having "no benefit" would appear to be incorrect.
Edited by Gatorguy - 10/9/13 at 5:41am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #127 of 139
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post

No, I'm not a Democrat (with capital D) although I'm a democrat (with lower-case d). The closest I come to being a Democrat is that I consider the Tea Party wing of the Republicans, which holds the entire party by its balls, to be a bunch of lunatics, meaning that the Republican party, as it exists today, is not electable, which leaves a rational person with the option to vote for the party that does the least possible damage given the realities on the ground, and that happens to be the Democratic party, thanks to a rather despicable two-party system that makes any democratically (lower case d) minded person cringe given how it dumbs down and limits political debate.

While I agree with much of what you say, the bolded part is wrong. With gerrymandering (look it up), a large fraction of incumbents on both sides of the aisle have a nearly unbreakable lock on their districts. Something like 25-30% of all Congressmen had >75% of the votes in the last election. Those people most certainly are electable - at least until hell freezes over.

 

Depends what definition of "electable" you mean. Of course they are technically speaking electable, which is why they are sitting in Congress right now.

 

But there's also another meaning of the word, as in "no sane person would consider casting their vote for them". That should give you an idea what I think of the mental state of the people who vote for these lunatics. (It's worth pointing out, that the Republican party wasn't always a collection of lunatics. Reagan (as much as I disagreed with him), Dole (with whom I agreed on quite many things), and many others are within a range that doesn't required delusion to elect.

 

Some of the statements coming out of congress in regards to a potential US government default just show how far gone these people are. They'd be willing to tank the world economy in a recession and then say: "Oh, nothing happens, the US can't default" Tell that to the bond holders. Tell it to the currency markets (look where the dollar is going with the mere potential of a default...), etc.

 

These people are either insane, or guilty of treason, because they show utter disregard for how democracy is supposed to work, and they are willing to gamble the welfare of a nation for their narrow-minded political principles, which they change as it's convenient for their own purposes.

post #128 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


I don't need to. It's been done repeatedly (including some examples below). Fox News is the only "news" media to fight and win a state supreme court case to get affirmation of their right to lie.
Nice try. You've mastered the Fox News red herring garbage. None of those links refutes what I said - you're simply trying to hide the facts behind a stream of nonsequitors. No one cares if Akres won their other arguments. The ruling is clear:

The appeals court decision (as affirmed by the supreme court) said:
" the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news — which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” — does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102.[...] Because the FCC’s news distortion policy is not a “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower’s statute."

That is, they supported Fox News' claim that there was no law requiring them to tell the truth.

Jon Stewart (and Colbert, as well) regularly lampoon the constant lies from Fox News. All you need to do is go to their web site and watch virtually any of their shows for examples of Fox lying.

 

FYI, there's no need to tell us where you you get your news from, we can tell from your posts...

Just say no to MacMall.  They don't honor their promotions and won't respond to customer inquiries.  There are better retailers out there.
Reply
Just say no to MacMall.  They don't honor their promotions and won't respond to customer inquiries.  There are better retailers out there.
Reply
post #129 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by coelocanth View Post
 

 

 

The point is the 5S (and our family owns 3), does not have a top of the line display for a smart phone.  5S display is 1136-by-640-pixel resolution at 326 ppi. Not even 720p. 

Top line android smart phone like the one being ridiculed are 1920x1080 at 440 ppi. So why not write an article entitled"Iphone 5S:   Newest Apple phone touch screens have fewer pixels than Galaxy S4."

 

Apple products are great so are Android and some Windows devices.  So why does AI feel the need to always mock the competition. Fear of an open market with competent competitors?  This article was just silly.

 

Nice discussion of the 5s display. I wasn't talking about that, but an alternative to what Fox implemented using iPads and Apple TVs, along with custom built iPad apps that did not mirror the content on the iPad, but presented content on the new displays and alternate content/controls on the iPad.

 

But thanks for the clarification on where each OS smartphone stands on display ppi.

post #130 of 139
Where can I buy these huge touch screens?Is this reliable:http://tabler.tv/multitouchscreen.html
post #131 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1cap1tan View Post

"...Do you REALLY think the reason there are only 4 tweets on the screen is because Fox's people are too dumb to use the space more efficiently? "
 
YES!
post #132 of 139

You would think the Person, responsible for the Setup, would have gone, 4K.    Getting an overlay for a 39"   4K, for a combined price under $2000 ($599 for monitor)..  With 4K, aka 3840x2160.. YOU Can actually sit up close to it, and it is perfectly clear. Even 1" away, cannot see a Pixel. Whoever put 1080P, TV's (monitor's w\ TV Tuner), that close to a user, should be looked at, with some serious doubt on it actually working,  or They don't have the Professionalism to showcase, that it truly wouldnt work well.

 

If in doubt, just buy a single Seiki 39"   4K TV, hook up to PC, via HDMI, Just try using it as a Computer Monitor, to really understand how much better it can be. Getting an overlay is secondary. I'm Sure Microsoft\Fox can a few.. Technically Microsoft can just make their Kinect 2.x Work with a PC.. Don't \ WON'T Need to touch the monitor. Just a Thought..

post #133 of 139

Not to Mention, the IPAD 4th Gen with Retina Display, that is 3MP, Display.

1080P is 2MP.

2160P is 8MP. A 4x Fold over 1080P, and 2.5 Fold over the ipad Retina..

post #134 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rippley View Post

You would think the Person, responsible for the Setup, would have gone, 4K.    Getting an overlay for a 39"   4K, for a combined price under $2000 ($599 for monitor)..  With 4K, aka 3840x2160.. YOU Can actually sit up close to it, and it is perfectly clear. Even 1" away, cannot see a Pixel. Whoever put 1080P, TV's (monitor's w\ TV Tuner), that close to a user, should be looked at, with some serious doubt on it actually working,  or They don't have the Professionalism to showcase, that it truly wouldnt work well.

If in doubt, just buy a single Seiki 39"   4K TV, hook up to PC, via HDMI, Just try using it as a Computer Monitor, to really understand how much better it can be. Getting an overlay is secondary. I'm Sure Microsoft\Fox can a few.. Technically Microsoft can just make their Kinect 2.x Work with a PC.. Don't \ WON'T Need to touch the monitor. Just a Thought..

And that would help the person sitting in their living room 8 feet from their 1080p TV displaying a highly compressed cable signal of the Fox broadast how exactly?



Unless Fox is zooming in on a relatively small section of the screen it would be a pointless waste of money lost on the intended audience who would gain nothing by having a 4k monitor in the studio.
post #135 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

And that would help the person sitting in their living room 8 feet from their 1080p TV displaying a highly compressed cable signal of the Fox broadast how exactly?



Unless Fox is zooming in on a relatively small section of the screen it would be a pointless waste of money lost on the intended audience who would gain nothing by having a 4k monitor in the studio.

According to fox itself, the point if those big BAT displays is not to show things to users. It's to "gather news."

Of course, it's all theater. If they were really trying to use resolution effectively they wouldn't be video taping a screen at all.

This obvious nonsense of using phony tools for show in order to do a ridiculous job (factcheck twitter??!) is par for the course for a propaganda channel that serves the right wing of the Republican Party.

Anyone who defends this ludicrous stage as being a serious attempt to "gather news" not only knows nothing about journalism, but is also clearly simple enough to regularly sponge up the theatrical televangelism that fox portrays as news reporting to its unsophisticated audience.
post #136 of 139

Would it be "a serious attempt to gather news" if the screens had more pixels than an iPad? 

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #137 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
 

Would it be "a serious attempt to gather news" if the screens had more pixels than an iPad? 

 

It would indicate, if Fox were using professional tools, that it was aiming to at least create the impression that it was a news gathering organization. 

 

Filling a stage full of what appears to be oversized iPads (that are less capable than a consumer device 1/14th the price) and referring to it as a "news room" is quite obviously sham entertainment. That’s not news, though.

 

The notable bit is how incompetent Fox was at designing even the pretense of a busy-work stage show for its audience. Appears to be quite nearly contempt.

post #138 of 139

So computers using less than Retina-quality screens are unprofessional?  My screen at work is 1600x1050 so I guess I'm just a pretender?

 

I'm not arguing that Fox News deserves anything more than ridicule and contempt (I reckon I'm more left wing than 90% here), but connecting this to Apple (or even Windows) is laughable.  The nonsensical news room screens are a stage prop, nothing more, and obvious nonsense irrespective of the technology used.  If this were a forum topic it'd be PoliticalInsider, and would be a dead thread of partisan rubbishness.

 

Not a newsworthy article, regardless of your political leaning.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #139 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
 

Would it be "a serious attempt to gather news" if the screens had more pixels than an iPad? 

 

It might be serious news gathering if they had used the screen real estate to follow a variety of news wires, etc. and didn't just use a huge screen to "impressively" display four tweets, which would have required

a) a better use of the resolution they currently have and

b) would benefit from a higher resolution on a surface that big.

 

The low resolution and the use thereof shows that it's a stage prop and show piece for the easily impressed and technically unsophisticated and not a news gathering tool. If the resolution is higher or smaller than the iPad is per se irrelevant, except that an iPad in a real journalists hands (using all sorts of apps like e.g. the Reuters app, etc.) is a more serious news gathering tool than a giant screen showing four tweets dwarfing the TV "journalists" employed by Fox.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Fox News' giant new Microsoft touch screens have fewer pixels than an iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Fox News' giant new Microsoft touch screens have fewer pixels than an iPad