The screen has been the same since 2007 - it definitely needs a refresh at this point. Even though you wouldn't read a webpage at full zoomed out view on a phone browser, the crispness and the ability to actually decipher the small text on higher PPI smartphone screens is nice.
It's just eye-candy, but it's great to have. Apple can't continue to rest on its pre-established laurels on iPhone design, or it risks stagnation.
When the iPhone came out its PPI was above the standard, now it's well below the standard. I expected a higher dot-pitch last time so this time around I think it's absolutely necessary. I don't expect Apple matching some other devices out there as those devices are using it as a selling point since they don't have much else, but I would expect at least 25% more in each direction and hopefully as much as 50% in each direction. By now, any power saving that could be had from rendering less pixels should be easily handled going into the 4th iteration.
. .Current :: 165 ppi = 153,600 / 3.5" = 480 x 320
. 25% more :: 206 ppi = 240,000 / 3.5" = 600 x 400 = (480 x 1.25) x (320 x 1.25)
. 50% more :: 247 ppi = 345,600 / 3.5" = 720 x 480 = (480 x 1.50) x (320 x 1.50)
. . . . . .—— . . . . — . . . . . . . .—
.Nexus One :: 252 ppi = 384,000 / 3.7" = 800 x 480
Moto Droid :: 264 ppi = 409,920 / 3.7" = 854 x 480
'Eye candy' isn't enough of a reason to add a feature IMO, if it just adds cost to the phone with no real benefit. I'm more interested in features with teeth. The pixel density on the phone is fine given the screen size, and the only benefit to a higher screen resolution given the same screen size is simply bragging rights. Unfortunately, Apple will eventually have to play the game as well or face public outcry for a feature bump that has questionable benefits. I could see a small bump to get the PPI in the area of typical magazine quality, but more than that is just wasted IMO.
If they eventually decide to up the screen size closer to 4", then a bump in PPI might be warranted but the sample screen posted in the article looks to be exactly the same dimensions as the previous screen size.
Aesthetics is a big reason why people buy consumer goods. Quality of the display is a significant part of that. Technology becomes cheaper as time goes on, and while the LCD screens used on the iPhone in 2007 may have been considered expensive and high end then, the cost for manufacturing that part has probably gone down significantly in three years - especially after recycling it for three straight generations. While it's not bad by any means, it's simply mediocre compared to other similarly positioned/priced phones out on the market.
I'm not asking for the newest in AMOLED technology, I'm asking for something that conforms to the standards for a high end phone on the market right now.
Those pictures are useless, as are most comparison shots on the internet. You need to compare them in person. The angle the shot is taken at influences the outcome, and depending on what the person is trying to convey, the picture will be deliberately be shot in such a way as to make whatever they want to look better, look better. Up close, the difference isn't so great. It's interesting that with all the hype, the Nexus One isn't selling. 22,000 the first week, and no better since.
*shrug* A picture is worth a 1000 words. IMO, I doubt that the picture was deliberately distorted to disfavor the iPhone. As an iPhone owner (and I presume you too), its fact that the iPhone's screen washes out at that angle (as many LCDs do). Since its well known that back lit LCDs tend to wash out at acute angles, the angle of the photo is valid, no? I sure hope Apple joins the AMOLED brigade. There's no reason why companies within the next 2 years shouldn't be producing PMPs and phones with AMOLEDs. Time to move forward.
The Nexus One isn't selling well for a whole host of reasons. While I don't intend to ever pick one up, I'm sure its lack of sales are not due to it having an AMOLED screen
When the iPhone came out its PPI was above the standard, now it's well below the standard. I expected a higher dot-pitch last time so this time around I think it's absolutely necessary. I don't expect Apple matching some other devices out there as those devices are using it as a selling point since they don't have much else, but I would expect at least 25% more in each direction and hopefully as much as 50% in each direction. By now, any power saving that could be had from rendering less pixels should be easily handled going into the 4th iteration.
. .Current :: 165 ppi = 153,600 / 3.5" = 480 x 320
. 25% more :: 206 ppi = 240,000 / 3.5" = 600 x 400 = (480 x 1.25) x (320 x 1.25)
. 50% more :: 247 ppi = 345,600 / 3.5" = 720 x 480 = (480 x 1.50) x (320 x 1.50)
.Nexus One :: 252 ppi = 384,000 / 3.7" = 800 x 480
Moto Droid :: 264 ppi = 409,920 / 3.7" = 854 x 480
(Math is reversed for easier reading)
This is a great summary Solipsism. To my mind the 25% bump would be about right. It would give it the same pixel density as your typical magazine, and a good balance between cost and value.
I'm of two minds about the larger screen. I see the appeal, but I'm wary that a larger screen will make the phone awkward in the hand. Anything beyond 4" seems ridiculous. One of these days I'll go drop a nexus in my hand to see how it feels and judge from that.
This is a great summary Solipsism. To my mind the 25% bump would be about right. It would give it the same pixel density as your typical magazine, and a good balance between cost and value.
I'm of two minds about the larger screen. I see the appeal, but I'm wary that a larger screen will make the phone awkward in the hand. Anything beyond 4" seems ridiculous. One of these days I'll go drop a nexus in my hand to see how it feels and judge from that.
Thanks. Usually my calculations with markup formatting seems to get overlooked.
I'm not sure Apple will go beyond 3.5". Going to a larger resolution is one thing. They can do that with relative ease. But going to a larger display would make the icons all larger or create more space between them, like the iPad. I'm not sure I want that. I type very well on the iPhone in portrait mode (can't do landscape mode well) and I think my memory would be off if they went larger.
I think they thought about this a long time before committing to a size. I don't think they'll change it for 0.2" or 0.5" unless there was a major technical reason to do so.
To my mind the 25% bump would be about right. It would give it the same pixel density as your typical magazine...
No.
Magazine type is set at extremely high resolution. At least 600dpi, probably more. I challenge you to look as closely as you possibly can at magazine type and find the individual pixels. You will not be able to.
Magazine imagery, however, is usually printed with 225 to 300 dpi screens.
Magazine type is set at extremely high resolution. At least 600dpi, probably more. I challenge you to look as closely as you possibly can at magazine type and find the individual pixels. You will not be able to.
Magazine imagery, however, is usually printed with 225 to 300 dpi screens.
:d
Yes there are magazines that print text at 600 dpi but those are the high end. There are also magazines that print text at 300 dpi. You would be hard pressed to spot individual pixels at 300 dpi let alone 600 dpi. Most magazines demand higher DPI so that any resizing and resampling isn't as obvious (much more image data to work with). You would be hard pressed to see pixels in printed text above 300 DPI.
Most modern monitors range in the 100-300 PPI range (those closer to 100 being far more common). The whole idea was that the human eye can't discern individual pixels past 300 DPI. IMO, anything beyond that is wasted.
I still don't see much use for multi-tasking outside of the core apps. AIM can just forward any messages as a text message you can reply to and I don't understand the need for Skype on a cell phone. I have no other apps that I currently use, or that I can think of that need it.
You obviously don't play iPhone games then. Having to quit a game (which may not save your progress when you do so) to answer an IM, then reload the game, then quit to answer a text, then load the game, then quit to answer an email is not exactly fun.
I guess you've also never tried Last FM or other streaming services. Being locked inside the app or the music will stop is just ridiculous.
You obviously don't play iPhone games then. Having to quit a game (which may not save your progress when you do so) to answer an IM, then reload the game, then quit to answer a text, then load the game, then quit to answer an email is not exactly fun.
I guess you've also never tried Last FM or other streaming services. Being locked inside the app or the music will stop is just ridiculous.
Then I would suggest you complain to the game maker. I have quite a few games that save the state automatically (as they should). When I enter the game later, it simply asks me to resume.
You're stating a need for multitasking for a game that doesn't even require it. You aren't playing your game in the background, you actually want it to suspend when you exit.
Your point about the streaming music services are at least a bit more rational, but I have no need to launch an app like Pandora or AOL Radio, and then go and open something else. I launch the app to listen music at the gym and it works perfectly but I can at least see a need if someone wanted to launch one of those apps and then browse the web or read e-mail. Rediculous? No. Inconvenient for some? Yes.
You obviously don't play iPhone games then. Having to quit a game (which may not save your progress when you do so) to answer an IM, then reload the game, then quit to answer a text, then load the game, then quit to answer an email is not exactly fun.
I agree 100%. It would be much better to be able to leave apps (mid game) and return to them with no re-loading or loss of context.
But that isn't multi-tasking! If we had multi-tasking, games would be terrible. It would be pretty poor if the game continued to run in-background. It would be annoying to return from the email client only to discover a troll had taken out your hero character!
The behaviour you describe should be added to the iPhone.
I don't think there is nearly as strong a case for simultaneous execution. ie Apps running in background.
The screen has been the same since 2007 - it definitely needs a refresh at this point. Even though you wouldn't read a webpage at full zoomed out view on a phone browser, the crispness and the ability to actually decipher the small text on higher PPI smartphone screens is nice.
It's just eye-candy, but it's great to have. Apple can't continue to rest on its pre-established laurels on iPhone design, or it risks stagnation.
I'm assuming that Apple will have a Higher rez screen. I think so because the iPad does. While that rez would be absurd, and the only very small screens that do it are mucho expensive, I think something in between would make sense. If we look at the reviews of the Nexus One, we'll see that a program that has 5 lines of info on a page with the iPhone has 7 on the Nexus. With screen rez so much higher on that device, it's interesting that they wouldn't have 9 lines of info; but they can't.
The reason why, is that text can only be so small before people can't read it without putting the phone right up to their face, and most people can't focus that closely.
But for other screen elements, the higher rez is useful for developers, because they will have closer abilities for backgrounds and other detail, while the text could be variable. I thin that 800 x 480 is a bit much on a 3.5" screen, but perhaps it would be useful for that purpose.
*shrug* A picture is worth a 1000 words. IMO, I doubt that the picture was deliberately distorted to disfavor the iPhone. As an iPhone owner (and I presume you too), its fact that the iPhone's screen washes out at that angle (as many LCDs do). Since its well known that back lit LCDs tend to wash out at acute angles, the angle of the photo is valid, no? I sure hope Apple joins the AMOLED brigade. There's no reason why companies within the next 2 years shouldn't be producing PMPs and phones with AMOLEDs. Time to move forward.
The Nexus One isn't selling well for a whole host of reasons. While I don't intend to ever pick one up, I'm sure its lack of sales are not due to it having an AMOLED screen
I didn't say it was due to that. I am saying that it hasn't helped, and that's what a product is all about. Features that will sell it because they make it better in some major way.
I know what it looks like at acute angles, as, as you've said, I have one.
but there are two reasons why AMOLED isn't such a major improvement that that reason would be the major reason to switch.
First of all, the screen Apple is using isn't an IPS. Because of that, the viewing angle isn't great. But that can be fixed by going to an IPS screen, if they're available in the size and rez Apple needs for the new phone. The difference in angle viewing between an AMOLED and an IPS screen is much smaller. With that, it really doesn't matter.
Two is that a phone, with its small screen, is meant for one person. If, sometimes, another wants to see over your shoulder, it will look the same, otherwise, you can tilt it a bit. It's really not such a big deal on a phone. Apple has understood this principal by making the much bigger iPad screen an IPS panel. With that device, more than one person will be viewing it often enough so that it will matter.
Does that mean that I wouldn't want an AMOLED eventually? No. I've been a supporter of AMOLEDS from way back. But so far, their negatives have balanced out the positives for such small screens. With the new AMOLEDs that Samsung has announced coming out over the next few months, things may change. And if Samsung has improved panels, then LG, Apple's main supplier, will likely have them as well. Then we'll see.
Right now, I don't see any real advantage to them. Better viewing indoors, worse viewing outdoors, not better, and possibly somewhat worse battery life, over saturated, unnatural colors. Better than current LCD viewing from an angle, and more expensive.
Full colors AMOLEDs are still a new technology. They will get better than LCDs, but they're not they're yet with current displays.
Magazine type is set at extremely high resolution. At least 600dpi, probably more. I challenge you to look as closely as you possibly can at magazine type and find the individual pixels. You will not be able to.
Magazine imagery, however, is usually printed with 225 to 300 dpi screens.
:d
Magazines are set with type at 900 dpi to 1200 dpi.
Graphics and photos are set at either 133 lpi for cheaper mags, about 150 for average ones, and as high as 175 for deluxe (and expensive, as the paper must be better as well) issues.
The question is whether that's relevant. Displays look very different than paper copy. Text that requires 900 dpi on a clay coated page looks about the same at 250 ppi on a screen. That's from being in that business for many years, and having worked on thousands of pages of text, graphics and photos.
If you're going to peer at your monitor from a distance of 6 inches, there will be a difference, but really, so what? That's not normal, and it doesn't matter.
But from the usual distances of from about 2.5 feet to 1.5 feet, the differences either can't be seen, or they're so small they don't matter.
Very few people have actually used a monitor with 250 ppi, so they're just guessing at what it looks at. These are VERY expensive.
There's a point where the technology becomes better than we can use. Where do we say it's enough? Marketing will always say more is better, but it's not at that point where we can't use it.
Yes there are magazines that print text at 600 dpi but those are the high end. There are also magazines that print text at 300 dpi. You would be hard pressed to spot individual pixels at 300 dpi let alone 600 dpi. Most magazines demand higher DPI so that any resizing and resampling isn't as obvious (much more image data to work with). You would be hard pressed to see pixels in printed text above 300 DPI.
Most modern monitors range in the 100-300 PPI range (those closer to 100 being far more common). The whole idea was that the human eye can't discern individual pixels past 300 DPI. IMO, anything beyond that is wasted.
I don't know of any magazines that print B/W text at that low dpi. Magazines are printed on a press which has the text rendered differently than color graphics and photos.
Which monitors have 300DPI other than those costing in the 5 figure range for industry (somewhat less for B/W)?
You obviously don't play iPhone games then. Having to quit a game (which may not save your progress when you do so) to answer an IM, then reload the game, then quit to answer a text, then load the game, then quit to answer an email is not exactly fun.
I guess you've also never tried Last FM or other streaming services. Being locked inside the app or the music will stop is just ridiculous.
Most all iPhone games save the state. When you come back, you're in the exact place you left them. A few don't, but thats the choice of the developer.
Most iPhone programs save their state. This is normal, not unusual.
I don't know of any magazines that print B/W text at that low dpi. Magazines are printed on a press which has the text rendered differently than color graphics and photos.
Which monitors have 300DPI other than those costing in the 5 figure range for industry (somewhat less for B/W)?
I shop bargain monitors. None of mine are above 200.
The iPad has a significantly higher display resolution. The term is referring to pixel dimensions in that sense. In a strict sense of digital display management we would go by the pixels per inch or its dot pitch. For this forum the term is adequate.
Comments
The screen has been the same since 2007 - it definitely needs a refresh at this point. Even though you wouldn't read a webpage at full zoomed out view on a phone browser, the crispness and the ability to actually decipher the small text on higher PPI smartphone screens is nice.
It's just eye-candy, but it's great to have. Apple can't continue to rest on its pre-established laurels on iPhone design, or it risks stagnation.
When the iPhone came out its PPI was above the standard, now it's well below the standard. I expected a higher dot-pitch last time so this time around I think it's absolutely necessary. I don't expect Apple matching some other devices out there as those devices are using it as a selling point since they don't have much else, but I would expect at least 25% more in each direction and hopefully as much as 50% in each direction. By now, any power saving that could be had from rendering less pixels should be easily handled going into the 4th iteration.
'Eye candy' isn't enough of a reason to add a feature IMO, if it just adds cost to the phone with no real benefit. I'm more interested in features with teeth. The pixel density on the phone is fine given the screen size, and the only benefit to a higher screen resolution given the same screen size is simply bragging rights. Unfortunately, Apple will eventually have to play the game as well or face public outcry for a feature bump that has questionable benefits. I could see a small bump to get the PPI in the area of typical magazine quality, but more than that is just wasted IMO.
If they eventually decide to up the screen size closer to 4", then a bump in PPI might be warranted but the sample screen posted in the article looks to be exactly the same dimensions as the previous screen size.
Aesthetics is a big reason why people buy consumer goods. Quality of the display is a significant part of that. Technology becomes cheaper as time goes on, and while the LCD screens used on the iPhone in 2007 may have been considered expensive and high end then, the cost for manufacturing that part has probably gone down significantly in three years - especially after recycling it for three straight generations. While it's not bad by any means, it's simply mediocre compared to other similarly positioned/priced phones out on the market.
I'm not asking for the newest in AMOLED technology, I'm asking for something that conforms to the standards for a high end phone on the market right now.
Those pictures are useless, as are most comparison shots on the internet. You need to compare them in person. The angle the shot is taken at influences the outcome, and depending on what the person is trying to convey, the picture will be deliberately be shot in such a way as to make whatever they want to look better, look better. Up close, the difference isn't so great. It's interesting that with all the hype, the Nexus One isn't selling. 22,000 the first week, and no better since.
*shrug* A picture is worth a 1000 words. IMO, I doubt that the picture was deliberately distorted to disfavor the iPhone. As an iPhone owner (and I presume you too), its fact that the iPhone's screen washes out at that angle (as many LCDs do). Since its well known that back lit LCDs tend to wash out at acute angles, the angle of the photo is valid, no? I sure hope Apple joins the AMOLED brigade. There's no reason why companies within the next 2 years shouldn't be producing PMPs and phones with AMOLEDs. Time to move forward.
The Nexus One isn't selling well for a whole host of reasons. While I don't intend to ever pick one up, I'm sure its lack of sales are not due to it having an AMOLED screen
When the iPhone came out its PPI was above the standard, now it's well below the standard. I expected a higher dot-pitch last time so this time around I think it's absolutely necessary. I don't expect Apple matching some other devices out there as those devices are using it as a selling point since they don't have much else, but I would expect at least 25% more in each direction and hopefully as much as 50% in each direction. By now, any power saving that could be had from rendering less pixels should be easily handled going into the 4th iteration.
This is a great summary Solipsism. To my mind the 25% bump would be about right. It would give it the same pixel density as your typical magazine, and a good balance between cost and value.
I'm of two minds about the larger screen. I see the appeal, but I'm wary that a larger screen will make the phone awkward in the hand. Anything beyond 4" seems ridiculous. One of these days I'll go drop a nexus in my hand to see how it feels and judge from that.
This is a great summary Solipsism. To my mind the 25% bump would be about right. It would give it the same pixel density as your typical magazine, and a good balance between cost and value.
I'm of two minds about the larger screen. I see the appeal, but I'm wary that a larger screen will make the phone awkward in the hand. Anything beyond 4" seems ridiculous. One of these days I'll go drop a nexus in my hand to see how it feels and judge from that.
Thanks. Usually my calculations with markup formatting seems to get overlooked.
I'm not sure Apple will go beyond 3.5". Going to a larger resolution is one thing. They can do that with relative ease. But going to a larger display would make the icons all larger or create more space between them, like the iPad. I'm not sure I want that. I type very well on the iPhone in portrait mode (can't do landscape mode well) and I think my memory would be off if they went larger.
I think they thought about this a long time before committing to a size. I don't think they'll change it for 0.2" or 0.5" unless there was a major technical reason to do so.
To my mind the 25% bump would be about right. It would give it the same pixel density as your typical magazine...
No.
Magazine type is set at extremely high resolution. At least 600dpi, probably more. I challenge you to look as closely as you possibly can at magazine type and find the individual pixels. You will not be able to.
Magazine imagery, however, is usually printed with 225 to 300 dpi screens.
:d
No.
Magazine type is set at extremely high resolution. At least 600dpi, probably more. I challenge you to look as closely as you possibly can at magazine type and find the individual pixels. You will not be able to.
Magazine imagery, however, is usually printed with 225 to 300 dpi screens.
:d
Yes there are magazines that print text at 600 dpi but those are the high end. There are also magazines that print text at 300 dpi. You would be hard pressed to spot individual pixels at 300 dpi let alone 600 dpi. Most magazines demand higher DPI so that any resizing and resampling isn't as obvious (much more image data to work with). You would be hard pressed to see pixels in printed text above 300 DPI.
Most modern monitors range in the 100-300 PPI range (those closer to 100 being far more common). The whole idea was that the human eye can't discern individual pixels past 300 DPI. IMO, anything beyond that is wasted.
I still don't see much use for multi-tasking outside of the core apps. AIM can just forward any messages as a text message you can reply to and I don't understand the need for Skype on a cell phone. I have no other apps that I currently use, or that I can think of that need it.
You obviously don't play iPhone games then. Having to quit a game (which may not save your progress when you do so) to answer an IM, then reload the game, then quit to answer a text, then load the game, then quit to answer an email is not exactly fun.
I guess you've also never tried Last FM or other streaming services. Being locked inside the app or the music will stop is just ridiculous.
You obviously don't play iPhone games then. Having to quit a game (which may not save your progress when you do so) to answer an IM, then reload the game, then quit to answer a text, then load the game, then quit to answer an email is not exactly fun.
I guess you've also never tried Last FM or other streaming services. Being locked inside the app or the music will stop is just ridiculous.
Then I would suggest you complain to the game maker. I have quite a few games that save the state automatically (as they should). When I enter the game later, it simply asks me to resume.
You're stating a need for multitasking for a game that doesn't even require it. You aren't playing your game in the background, you actually want it to suspend when you exit.
Your point about the streaming music services are at least a bit more rational, but I have no need to launch an app like Pandora or AOL Radio, and then go and open something else. I launch the app to listen music at the gym and it works perfectly but I can at least see a need if someone wanted to launch one of those apps and then browse the web or read e-mail. Rediculous? No. Inconvenient for some? Yes.
You obviously don't play iPhone games then. Having to quit a game (which may not save your progress when you do so) to answer an IM, then reload the game, then quit to answer a text, then load the game, then quit to answer an email is not exactly fun.
I agree 100%. It would be much better to be able to leave apps (mid game) and return to them with no re-loading or loss of context.
But that isn't multi-tasking! If we had multi-tasking, games would be terrible. It would be pretty poor if the game continued to run in-background. It would be annoying to return from the email client only to discover a troll had taken out your hero character!
The behaviour you describe should be added to the iPhone.
I don't think there is nearly as strong a case for simultaneous execution. ie Apps running in background.
C.
The screen has been the same since 2007 - it definitely needs a refresh at this point. Even though you wouldn't read a webpage at full zoomed out view on a phone browser, the crispness and the ability to actually decipher the small text on higher PPI smartphone screens is nice.
It's just eye-candy, but it's great to have. Apple can't continue to rest on its pre-established laurels on iPhone design, or it risks stagnation.
I'm assuming that Apple will have a Higher rez screen. I think so because the iPad does. While that rez would be absurd, and the only very small screens that do it are mucho expensive, I think something in between would make sense. If we look at the reviews of the Nexus One, we'll see that a program that has 5 lines of info on a page with the iPhone has 7 on the Nexus. With screen rez so much higher on that device, it's interesting that they wouldn't have 9 lines of info; but they can't.
The reason why, is that text can only be so small before people can't read it without putting the phone right up to their face, and most people can't focus that closely.
But for other screen elements, the higher rez is useful for developers, because they will have closer abilities for backgrounds and other detail, while the text could be variable. I thin that 800 x 480 is a bit much on a 3.5" screen, but perhaps it would be useful for that purpose.
*shrug* A picture is worth a 1000 words. IMO, I doubt that the picture was deliberately distorted to disfavor the iPhone. As an iPhone owner (and I presume you too), its fact that the iPhone's screen washes out at that angle (as many LCDs do). Since its well known that back lit LCDs tend to wash out at acute angles, the angle of the photo is valid, no? I sure hope Apple joins the AMOLED brigade. There's no reason why companies within the next 2 years shouldn't be producing PMPs and phones with AMOLEDs. Time to move forward.
The Nexus One isn't selling well for a whole host of reasons. While I don't intend to ever pick one up, I'm sure its lack of sales are not due to it having an AMOLED screen
I didn't say it was due to that. I am saying that it hasn't helped, and that's what a product is all about. Features that will sell it because they make it better in some major way.
I know what it looks like at acute angles, as, as you've said, I have one.
but there are two reasons why AMOLED isn't such a major improvement that that reason would be the major reason to switch.
First of all, the screen Apple is using isn't an IPS. Because of that, the viewing angle isn't great. But that can be fixed by going to an IPS screen, if they're available in the size and rez Apple needs for the new phone. The difference in angle viewing between an AMOLED and an IPS screen is much smaller. With that, it really doesn't matter.
Two is that a phone, with its small screen, is meant for one person. If, sometimes, another wants to see over your shoulder, it will look the same, otherwise, you can tilt it a bit. It's really not such a big deal on a phone. Apple has understood this principal by making the much bigger iPad screen an IPS panel. With that device, more than one person will be viewing it often enough so that it will matter.
Does that mean that I wouldn't want an AMOLED eventually? No. I've been a supporter of AMOLEDS from way back. But so far, their negatives have balanced out the positives for such small screens. With the new AMOLEDs that Samsung has announced coming out over the next few months, things may change. And if Samsung has improved panels, then LG, Apple's main supplier, will likely have them as well. Then we'll see.
Right now, I don't see any real advantage to them. Better viewing indoors, worse viewing outdoors, not better, and possibly somewhat worse battery life, over saturated, unnatural colors. Better than current LCD viewing from an angle, and more expensive.
Full colors AMOLEDs are still a new technology. They will get better than LCDs, but they're not they're yet with current displays.
No.
Magazine type is set at extremely high resolution. At least 600dpi, probably more. I challenge you to look as closely as you possibly can at magazine type and find the individual pixels. You will not be able to.
Magazine imagery, however, is usually printed with 225 to 300 dpi screens.
:d
Magazines are set with type at 900 dpi to 1200 dpi.
Graphics and photos are set at either 133 lpi for cheaper mags, about 150 for average ones, and as high as 175 for deluxe (and expensive, as the paper must be better as well) issues.
The question is whether that's relevant. Displays look very different than paper copy. Text that requires 900 dpi on a clay coated page looks about the same at 250 ppi on a screen. That's from being in that business for many years, and having worked on thousands of pages of text, graphics and photos.
If you're going to peer at your monitor from a distance of 6 inches, there will be a difference, but really, so what? That's not normal, and it doesn't matter.
But from the usual distances of from about 2.5 feet to 1.5 feet, the differences either can't be seen, or they're so small they don't matter.
Very few people have actually used a monitor with 250 ppi, so they're just guessing at what it looks at. These are VERY expensive.
There's a point where the technology becomes better than we can use. Where do we say it's enough? Marketing will always say more is better, but it's not at that point where we can't use it.
Yes there are magazines that print text at 600 dpi but those are the high end. There are also magazines that print text at 300 dpi. You would be hard pressed to spot individual pixels at 300 dpi let alone 600 dpi. Most magazines demand higher DPI so that any resizing and resampling isn't as obvious (much more image data to work with). You would be hard pressed to see pixels in printed text above 300 DPI.
Most modern monitors range in the 100-300 PPI range (those closer to 100 being far more common). The whole idea was that the human eye can't discern individual pixels past 300 DPI. IMO, anything beyond that is wasted.
I don't know of any magazines that print B/W text at that low dpi. Magazines are printed on a press which has the text rendered differently than color graphics and photos.
Which monitors have 300DPI other than those costing in the 5 figure range for industry (somewhat less for B/W)?
You obviously don't play iPhone games then. Having to quit a game (which may not save your progress when you do so) to answer an IM, then reload the game, then quit to answer a text, then load the game, then quit to answer an email is not exactly fun.
I guess you've also never tried Last FM or other streaming services. Being locked inside the app or the music will stop is just ridiculous.
Most all iPhone games save the state. When you come back, you're in the exact place you left them. A few don't, but thats the choice of the developer.
Most iPhone programs save their state. This is normal, not unusual.
I don't know of any magazines that print B/W text at that low dpi. Magazines are printed on a press which has the text rendered differently than color graphics and photos.
Which monitors have 300DPI other than those costing in the 5 figure range for industry (somewhat less for B/W)?
I shop bargain monitors. None of mine are above 200.
I'm assuming that Apple will have a Higher rez screen. I think so because the iPad does.
Actually, the iPad has a lower resolution than the iPhone.
iPad: 132 ppi
iPhone: 163 ppi
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/...-ipad-display/
I shop bargain monitors. None of mine are above 200.
Or even 200.
Actually, the iPad has a lower resolution than the iPhone.
iPad: 132 ppi
iPhone: 163 ppi
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/...-ipad-display/
We know. How expensive would a higher IPS 9.7" screen be? It would knock the pricing out the window.
Actually, the iPad has a lower resolution than the iPhone.
iPad: 132 ppi
iPhone: 163 ppi
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/...-ipad-display/
The iPad has a significantly higher display resolution. The term is referring to pixel dimensions in that sense. In a strict sense of digital display management we would go by the pixels per inch or its dot pitch. For this forum the term is adequate.