Analyst: iPhone 4 not "retinal display"
See for yourself, Apple misinformation again?
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2364871,00.asp
Quote:
"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.
"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."
"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.
"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."
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2364871,00.asp
Comments
See for yourself, Apple misinformation again?
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2364871,00.asp
This guy is full of shit looking for some web clicks.
Visual acuity with regards to DPI has already been well established with regards to printing.
Minimum Resolution for Smooth, Clean Images (dpi)
Distance \t20/20 20/15
(6/6)\t (6/4.5)
36"\t 68dpi\t 90dpi
24"\t 101dpi 135dpi
18"\t 135dpi\t 180dpi
12"\t 203dpi\t 270dpi
8"\t 304dpi\t 405dpi
6"\t 405dpi 540dpi
Of course what happens to the image after it leaves the retina and gets interpreted by the brain is a whole different matter. (thus DPI etc)
So technically the analyst is right and Steve Jobs is wrong.
But likely Steve already knows this and so does a lot of smart people at WWDC, and is just using "retinal display" as a tool of influence and control. "you believe what I say you believe"
Anyone dare correct him will find themselves 'persona non grata'.
It should be pretty easy for you, as you are saying that the individual pixels will be discernible.
The analyst says the iPhone 4 display is not a "retinal display" because it's has less resolution than the retina.
Of course what happens to the image after it leaves the retina and gets interpreted by the brain is a whole different matter. (thus DPI etc)
So technically the analyst is right and Steve Jobs is wrong.
But likely Steve already knows this and so does a lot of smart people at WWDC, and is just using "retinal display" as a tool of influence and control. "you believe what I say you believe"
Anyone dare correct him will find themselves 'persona non grata'.
Oh, and SpotOn-- you're verging on self parody.
The analyst says the iPhone 4 display is not a "retinal display" because it's has less resolution than the retina.
Jobs, didn't claim that the iPhone display had the same resolution as the human retina.
So technically the analyst is right and Steve Jobs is wrong.
So technically you don't seem to understand what either of them is saying.
..... and is just using "retinal display" as a tool of influence and control.
The terms is "Retina Display", and is being used as a tool of.... marketing!
Do you really believe any of the crap you write?
The analyst says the iPhone 4 display is not a "retinal display" because it's has less resolution than the retina.
Of course what happens to the image after it leaves the retina and gets interpreted by the brain is a whole different matter. (thus DPI etc)
So technically the analyst is right and Steve Jobs is wrong.
But likely Steve already knows this and so does a lot of smart people at WWDC, and is just using "retinal display" as a tool of influence and control. "you believe what I say you believe"
Anyone dare correct him will find themselves 'persona non grata'.
For normal eyes, which would apply to most people, the screen has no pixellation:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...ne-resolution/
and even with perfect vision, you're not really going to notice the difference because the phone won't be completely steady. When you move things around, you get blurring from the movement.
The phone crosses the threshold of what's required to deliver the marketed quality so I think it's fine for them to use it. I don't really like the term though because it doesn't really explain itself from the name.
For normal eyes, which would apply to most people, the screen has no pixellation:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...ne-resolution/
and even with perfect vision, you're not really going to notice the difference because the phone won't be completely steady. When you move things around, you get blurring from the movement.
The phone crosses the threshold of what's required to deliver the marketed quality so I think it's fine for them to use it. I don't really like the term though because it doesn't really explain itself from the name.
Agree. At 12 inches, even the Droid's screen at 480 x 854 has no real pixelation. While it's technically true (and theoretically) of what the Dr. says (he's got a Ph.D. and 20 years experience, after all), for all intents and purposes, most people aren't going to care.
We fastly approaching the point where for these small screen sizes, getting the upper hand on who has the higher pixel density is nothing more than a pissing match between companies.
...for all intensive purposes...
HaHaHaHaHa.... Ok, I'll just assume (from your screen-name) that english is not your first language.
HaHaHaHaHa.... Ok, I'll just assume (from your screen-name) that english is not your first language.
You're right it's not. But I've been in the US for 22 years. Silly mistake on my part. Happens when my mind's in multiple places at the same time.
I look forward to a psychiatrist weighing in on the incorrect use of a medical diagnosis in the phrase "Coo Coo for Cocoa Puffs."
I've always had a problem with Tony the Tiger's assertions about Frosted Flakes. I don't think they're "Grrrrreat!" I'd describe them as mediocre. While we're on the subject, I have never heard Rice Krispies make the sounds snap, crackle and pop. This really needs to be looked into right away.
...e. While we're on the subject, I have never heard Rice Krispies make the sounds snap, crackle and pop...
You're just not holding your ear the proper distance from the bowl. Rice Krispies have a "Tympanic Sound"... meaning at the proper distance, their sound output exactly matches the audio response of your ear's tympanic membrane. That does, however, assume a healthy ear... if you have any loss of hearing, due to age, or long-term exposure to loud noises, or have ever attended a KISS concert, then you won't be able to hear it.
You're just not holding your ear the proper distance from the bowl. Rice Krispies have a "Tympanic Sound"... meaning at the proper distance, their sound output exactly matches the audio response of your ear's tympanic membrane. That does, however, assume a healthy ear... if you have any loss of hearing, due to age, or long-term exposure to loud noises, or have ever attended a KISS concert, then you won't be able to hear it.
That explains everything, including why God can't make a rock bigger than He can lift.
Do you really believe any of the crap you write?
You just better worry about the tar balls washing up on my Florida beach house.
We are going to own your country real soon.