Oh well thanks for teaching me that! Didn't know all the details!
You interested in a job opening in Vision Science for University students?...
hehe
Another thing to consider is with a 960 by 640 pixel display, the entire screen has 614,400 pixels each with the ability to display only one of the 16 million rgb values. Since human vision does not use rgb it is difficult to compare it to a digital display. The mind interprets colors outside of the rgb color gamut. So in the regard to comparing the iPhone's display to human vision, aside from the resolution issue, the iPhone is also inferior, and to a measurable degree inaccurate, in its color representation.
Its a phone the screen is the right size, if you want it bigger get an iPad.
Ditto here... If the screen were any larger it would become awkward when talking on it as a standalone handset, especially for those people out there with smaller paws. I'll even go so far as to second the iPad part.
The iPad is a great device, and if you really want more screen it's awesome. I don't travel a lot, but we recently took a cruise and being able to watch a movie on the flight without have to fire up a laptop was pretty sweet. Not having to take it out of my backout to get thru airport security was nice too. The iPad to me is now an almost essential travel companion.
Another thing to consider is with a 960 by 640 pixel display, the entire screen has 614,400 pixels each with the ability to display only one of the 16 million rgb values. Since human vision does not use rgb it is difficult to compare it to a digital display. The mind interprets colors outside of the rgb color gamut. So in the regard to comparing the iPhone's display to human vision, aside from the resolution issue, the iPhone is also inferior, and to a measurable degree inaccurate, in its color representation.
Yeah I understand that!
But for a 199$ phone, it's pretty darn close enough for me!
I agree with this, but I think the rest of your comments are pretty much just a rationalization away of your disappointment that Apple produced something that is far ahead of everyone else.
But, as I commented on a thread yesterday, the competition with Android just gets in the way of real innovation. Being locked in an arms race means you have to refine, refine, refine, and don't have the time to devote to doing something totally innovative and revolutionary -- i.e., reinventing again what the smartphone is. That being said, it's an incredible refinement.
When I read your comment I had to truly ask myself, "is that really the case?" and I honestly from the bottom of my heart don't think it is.
I respect what I see here, and it's definitely a device I'm considering over the Evo, but I don't get sold on a lot of the buzz words Apple uses, and the only thing I'll rationalize is if I'm buying a device based on the fact that I want it, or if I'm being suckered by hype.
The 300 dpi standard for printing is a completely different issue. Modern print is made of of dots arranged in a pattern. A typical screen pattern is 150 lines per inch. Therefore if a photo is 300 dpi that means that there is twice as much color information as required. Theoretically if the picture was only 150 dpi but the pixels precisely aligned with the dot screen, it would look identical to the 300 dpi printed photo. In all likelihood the screen and the pixels won't align so the 300 dpi guarantees that there will be no resolution degradation due to interpolation when the image is screened to 150 lines.
That's not entirely true.
There are numerous kinds of printing. When printing text, lines per inch are often not relevant. That's because halftones aren't always used to print text.
150 lpi is often used for medium quality magazine printing. Higher quality magazines are printed at 175. High quality books (illustrations, photos, ect.) can be printed from 175 to over 200.
Waterless printing metods are often 300 lpi or even as high as 400.
Photos these days can have effective lpi's of up to 600.
Text is usually printed at 900 to 1200 lpi equivalents.
You are taking some of the lowest quality print, and thinking it's standard, when it is not.
But for a 199$ phone, it's pretty darn close enough for me!
I come back to that in my mind too. I can consider it to be not as grand as the salesmen at Apple would have us believe, but my God, for $200 it's a great buy.
No one makes a 64GB phone. You actually going to spend $300 on a 32GB micro SD card?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman
To me, I only needed two things to buy an iPhone this year: Verizon (and I was willing to wait until September for that) and 64 GB. Since one of the devices the iPhone would be expected to replace is my old iPod, it needs to have enough capacity to at least hold what my current iPod holds, which is roughly 40GB. (Since an iPhone does so much more, I have to figure on current usage + storage for new uses, making going backwards a non-starter.)
::: Sigh ::: I guess I won't be getting an iPhone for the next 2 years. Android, here I come.
Even with the battery increases and these times besting real world use of other smartphones I would like to see these times at least doubled. I can't stand how battery tech seemingly moves so slowly compared to the rest of the industry.
Battery technology is such a different beast compared to silicon technology. The automotive industry has been tackling that issue as well for decades for their electric vehicles. Isn't Apple using their own internally-developed battery specs?
I think it's just plain harder to develop a kind of battery material to be consistent and usable in the long term. I mean, this is electro-chemical stuff here. Mad-scientist realms that I think soon enough, some guy will accidentally mix some unknown materials and revolutionize the battery industry. Until then, it's simply a trial-by-error with some occasional refinements along the way.
What part of the announcement do you feel was hype.
In reviews Sprints 4G was only found to be marginally faster than AT&T's 3G but a significantly larger drain on the battery. I would call that being suckered by hype.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster
I respect what I see here, and it's definitely a device I'm considering over the Evo, but I don't get sold on a lot of the buzz words Apple uses, and the only thing I'll rationalize is if I'm buying a device based on the fact that I want it, or if I'm being suckered by hype.
What is the angular resolution of the human eye, and what linear distance does this angle correspond to at 12" away? I believe Steve was claiming that it is 300 dpi.
Approx. 1' arc. 300 ppi is approx. correct for that distance.
There are numerous kinds of printing. When printing text, lines per inch are often not relevant. That's because halftones aren't always used to print text.
150 lpi is often used for medium quality magazine printing. Higher quality magazines are printed at 175. High quality books (illustrations, photos, ect.) can be printed from 175 to over 200.
Waterless printing metods are often 300 lpi or even as high as 400.
Photos these days can have effective lpi's of up to 600.
Text is usually printed at 900 to 1200 lpi equivalents.
You are taking some of the lowest quality print, and thinking it's standard, when it is not.
Just an example Mel. If you are printing at 200 lpi then your digital photos should be 400 dpi to double the res of your output. Process or spot color line work has no screen whatsoever and in the that case the printing resolution is around 2400 dpi which is the maximum resolution of the photographic emulsion of the plate or film.
The other way to look at it is that Apples exclusive agreement with AT&T is disgraceful and they ned to be held accountable when and where ever possible. It is that old phrase " you made your bed now lay in it".
...so, what you're saying is: Apple's exclusive AT&T deal means people no longer have to be respectful? Really? That's really a sad statement.
Again, that's what's wrong with our society these days. I wonder if it's an American thing, or if it's everywhere...
I agree that the exclusive AT&T deal sucks. God, that's the only thing that has held me back from buying an iPhone so far (though I'll probably just cope with AT&T because I really want this new iPhone).
And so what? I had a suspicion that it had an internal function but I did not feel the need to inflate my ego (like certain posters) and advertise my thoughts to the world and say "I told you so". You need that kind of lift with your posts, go right ahead.
I think a lot of people thought it served a functional purpose. It was for me a quiet validation that Apple keeps to a design spec.
But, in this argument about ppi and eye resolution, we have to remember that each pixel is comprised of Red, Green, and Blue spots. Those spots are much smaller than the entire grey pixel they comprise. This is not understood by some posters here. So if there is one red pixel in a field for black it will be smaller than one pixel of light grey (or white), in that field of black.
No doubt the Apple goon squad dragged him to the dungeon under the Infinite Loop campus and are beating him to a bloody pulp as we speak.
Well, it is a developers' conference. Maybe he'll just get a little extra review love for his apps. You know, like what they affectionately refer to as the GV protocol.
Comments
Android has a 64GB phone?
No, and 32GB micro sd cards JUST came out and are stupid expensive.
I don't know what this dude is talking about.
Oh well thanks for teaching me that! Didn't know all the details!
You interested in a job opening in Vision Science for University students?...
hehe
Another thing to consider is with a 960 by 640 pixel display, the entire screen has 614,400 pixels each with the ability to display only one of the 16 million rgb values. Since human vision does not use rgb it is difficult to compare it to a digital display. The mind interprets colors outside of the rgb color gamut. So in the regard to comparing the iPhone's display to human vision, aside from the resolution issue, the iPhone is also inferior, and to a measurable degree inaccurate, in its color representation.
Its a phone the screen is the right size, if you want it bigger get an iPad.
Ditto here... If the screen were any larger it would become awkward when talking on it as a standalone handset, especially for those people out there with smaller paws. I'll even go so far as to second the iPad part.
The iPad is a great device, and if you really want more screen it's awesome. I don't travel a lot, but we recently took a cruise and being able to watch a movie on the flight without have to fire up a laptop was pretty sweet. Not having to take it out of my backout to get thru airport security was nice too. The iPad to me is now an almost essential travel companion.
Another thing to consider is with a 960 by 640 pixel display, the entire screen has 614,400 pixels each with the ability to display only one of the 16 million rgb values. Since human vision does not use rgb it is difficult to compare it to a digital display. The mind interprets colors outside of the rgb color gamut. So in the regard to comparing the iPhone's display to human vision, aside from the resolution issue, the iPhone is also inferior, and to a measurable degree inaccurate, in its color representation.
Yeah I understand that!
But for a 199$ phone, it's pretty darn close enough for me!
I agree with this, but I think the rest of your comments are pretty much just a rationalization away of your disappointment that Apple produced something that is far ahead of everyone else.
But, as I commented on a thread yesterday, the competition with Android just gets in the way of real innovation. Being locked in an arms race means you have to refine, refine, refine, and don't have the time to devote to doing something totally innovative and revolutionary -- i.e., reinventing again what the smartphone is. That being said, it's an incredible refinement.
When I read your comment I had to truly ask myself, "is that really the case?" and I honestly from the bottom of my heart don't think it is.
I respect what I see here, and it's definitely a device I'm considering over the Evo, but I don't get sold on a lot of the buzz words Apple uses, and the only thing I'll rationalize is if I'm buying a device based on the fact that I want it, or if I'm being suckered by hype.
Yeah I understand that!
But for a 199$ phone, it's pretty darn close enough for me!
Yeah it is like the 256k and lossless audio argument. I can't tell the difference there either.
The 300 dpi standard for printing is a completely different issue. Modern print is made of of dots arranged in a pattern. A typical screen pattern is 150 lines per inch. Therefore if a photo is 300 dpi that means that there is twice as much color information as required. Theoretically if the picture was only 150 dpi but the pixels precisely aligned with the dot screen, it would look identical to the 300 dpi printed photo. In all likelihood the screen and the pixels won't align so the 300 dpi guarantees that there will be no resolution degradation due to interpolation when the image is screened to 150 lines.
That's not entirely true.
There are numerous kinds of printing. When printing text, lines per inch are often not relevant. That's because halftones aren't always used to print text.
150 lpi is often used for medium quality magazine printing. Higher quality magazines are printed at 175. High quality books (illustrations, photos, ect.) can be printed from 175 to over 200.
Waterless printing metods are often 300 lpi or even as high as 400.
Photos these days can have effective lpi's of up to 600.
Text is usually printed at 900 to 1200 lpi equivalents.
You are taking some of the lowest quality print, and thinking it's standard, when it is not.
Yeah I understand that!
But for a 199$ phone, it's pretty darn close enough for me!
I come back to that in my mind too. I can consider it to be not as grand as the salesmen at Apple would have us believe, but my God, for $200 it's a great buy.
I'm sold and set for preorder!! My brand new warranty replaced 3gs will became a nice paper weight! Unless I sell it to tommorow for 400
I respect what I see here, and it's definitely a device I'm considering over the Evo, but I don't get sold on a lot of the buzz words Apple uses,
It's magical!
To me, I only needed two things to buy an iPhone this year: Verizon (and I was willing to wait until September for that) and 64 GB. Since one of the devices the iPhone would be expected to replace is my old iPod, it needs to have enough capacity to at least hold what my current iPod holds, which is roughly 40GB. (Since an iPhone does so much more, I have to figure on current usage + storage for new uses, making going backwards a non-starter.)
::: Sigh ::: I guess I won't be getting an iPhone for the next 2 years. Android, here I come.
Even with the battery increases and these times besting real world use of other smartphones I would like to see these times at least doubled. I can't stand how battery tech seemingly moves so slowly compared to the rest of the industry.
Battery technology is such a different beast compared to silicon technology. The automotive industry has been tackling that issue as well for decades for their electric vehicles. Isn't Apple using their own internally-developed battery specs?
I think it's just plain harder to develop a kind of battery material to be consistent and usable in the long term. I mean, this is electro-chemical stuff here. Mad-scientist realms that I think soon enough, some guy will accidentally mix some unknown materials and revolutionize the battery industry. Until then, it's simply a trial-by-error with some occasional refinements along the way.
I would have kicked out the person who yelled that out and then banned who he is with.
No doubt the Apple goon squad dragged him to the dungeon under the Infinite Loop campus and are beating him to a bloody pulp as we speak.
In reviews Sprints 4G was only found to be marginally faster than AT&T's 3G but a significantly larger drain on the battery. I would call that being suckered by hype.
I respect what I see here, and it's definitely a device I'm considering over the Evo, but I don't get sold on a lot of the buzz words Apple uses, and the only thing I'll rationalize is if I'm buying a device based on the fact that I want it, or if I'm being suckered by hype.
What is the angular resolution of the human eye, and what linear distance does this angle correspond to at 12" away? I believe Steve was claiming that it is 300 dpi.
Approx. 1' arc. 300 ppi is approx. correct for that distance.
That's not entirely true.
There are numerous kinds of printing. When printing text, lines per inch are often not relevant. That's because halftones aren't always used to print text.
150 lpi is often used for medium quality magazine printing. Higher quality magazines are printed at 175. High quality books (illustrations, photos, ect.) can be printed from 175 to over 200.
Waterless printing metods are often 300 lpi or even as high as 400.
Photos these days can have effective lpi's of up to 600.
Text is usually printed at 900 to 1200 lpi equivalents.
You are taking some of the lowest quality print, and thinking it's standard, when it is not.
Just an example Mel. If you are printing at 200 lpi then your digital photos should be 400 dpi to double the res of your output. Process or spot color line work has no screen whatsoever and in the that case the printing resolution is around 2400 dpi which is the maximum resolution of the photographic emulsion of the plate or film.
The other way to look at it is that Apples exclusive agreement with AT&T is disgraceful and they ned to be held accountable when and where ever possible. It is that old phrase " you made your bed now lay in it".
...so, what you're saying is: Apple's exclusive AT&T deal means people no longer have to be respectful? Really? That's really a sad statement.
Again, that's what's wrong with our society these days. I wonder if it's an American thing, or if it's everywhere...
I agree that the exclusive AT&T deal sucks. God, that's the only thing that has held me back from buying an iPhone so far (though I'll probably just cope with AT&T because I really want this new iPhone).
Easy to say now...
And so what? I had a suspicion that it had an internal function but I did not feel the need to inflate my ego (like certain posters) and advertise my thoughts to the world and say "I told you so". You need that kind of lift with your posts, go right ahead.
I think a lot of people thought it served a functional purpose. It was for me a quiet validation that Apple keeps to a design spec.
Sheesh... get over it.
No doubt the Apple goon squad dragged him to the dungeon under the Infinite Loop campus and are beating him to a bloody pulp as we speak.
Well, it is a developers' conference. Maybe he'll just get a little extra review love for his apps. You know, like what they affectionately refer to as the GV protocol.