Quite brilliant. A term no one ever heard of is the new buzzword for cutting edge display technology and seems to have completely overshadowed OLED as the greatest display achievement since the color television.
I have a feeling that this is just the tip of the iceberg if the independent (though potentially biased) reports from WWDC are any measure of what we can expect the average user with think come June 24th.
I also find it interesting that IPS seems to be getting no play here when that in itself is a great accomplishment considering that notebooks and other portable devices have long sense not used them due to the increased power requirements. Now we have IPS and 4x the pixel count while maintaining the same video playback time as the 3GS. I wonder if IPS for MBPs are coming soon?
Appreciated. It's funny how often you see people asking for the removal of spam whist quoting the spam.
if apple came out with IPS on a MBP, no matter how new the MBP what I'm running atm, I'd sell it and buy a new one in a heartbeat. In case.... Apple, is listening...
my monitors I plug into ar all IPS, but the TN on the laptop, while nice in general, doesn't cut it like an IPS.
if apple came out with IPS on a MBP, no matter how new the MBP what I'm running atm, I'd sell it and buy a new one in a heartbeat. In case.... Apple, is listening...
my monitors I plug into ar all IPS, but the TN on the laptop, while nice in general, doesn't cut it like an IPS.
Apple's notebooks displays are good, but going with a quality IPS display would make them even better.
Lenovo tried the IPS display years ago and HP has apparently brought it back just last month for their EliteBook 8740w as their branded "DreamColor". One site said it would be a $600 premium for the 10-bit S-IPS "DreamColor" display but I can't even this option at all on HP's configuration page.
The fact is that the statement was true. When Jobs talks about 'human vision', he's clearly talking about AVERAGE human vision. No doubt Superman could see the pixels on this phone - along with an insignificant percentage of mere mortals. But 20/20 vision is DEFINED as 'normal' human vision - and all the published reports agree that for someone with 20/20 vision holding the phone at 12-18", the pixels will be invisible.
Truth is truth, right? So why are you spreading lies?
People who know more than either of us say that it not only is not true, but is the wrong way of measuring visual acuity. Let's face it, Steve seldom lets the truth stand in the way of hyperbole.
I stand by the observation that he would have been better served to simply state the facts, i.e. that it is the highest resolution screen on a cell phone (when introduced) and that it looks quite good...he would say "incredible!"
My sentiments exactly. And you got it in the first post of this thread. This debate is done, stick a fork in it. My retina can distinguish time-wasting bullsh1t from a mile away.
It seems also that some women have a fourth type of cone, beyond the normal ones (sensitive to red, blue, green)...
Women. Always wanting more and always more sensitive... ...This fourth type of cone is apparently called the R-Spot. Apparently David Beckham's appearance is proven to stimulate the R-Spot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Of course. That's how they see things that aren't there-my ex-wife must have been a tetrachromat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
In case you missed it, iPhone OS is now simply "iOS" and Mac OS X is now simply "iOS Development Platform".
Well, I decided I had to measure the resolution of my eyes myself, using the method on the wikipedia page mentioned above. I created two 1000 x 1000 images with one-pixel black lines, one horizontal and one vertical, using this simple Matlab script:
Code:
a = repmat([1 0],1000,500);
imwrite(a ,'lines_vertical.png')
imwrite(a','lines_horizontal.png')
I put the images on my 24 inch LED Cinema Display, and on my 15 inch Macbook Pro. I measured the distance I had to move my eyes away from the display to make the lines disappear. The results were the same for the horizontal and vertical lines (both devices have square pixels so the numbers are the same as wel), so I only put the results for the vertical lines (horizontal resolution) in the table.
I couldn't figure out how to make a table on the forum so the table is over here:
Make sure you put your viewer on "actual size" (in Preview.app this is command-0).
I also put the Matlab script and the spreadsheet (OpenOffice format) in the directory in the second link, so you can play with it.
It turns out that my eyes have a resolution of a little bit more than 0.6 arc minutes, using this test. The last column in the table gives the values for the iPhone 4. I used 304 mm, which is 12 inches, because that is what Steve Jobs said. This is 0.88 arc minutes, so I guess I will be able to see pixels when holding the iPhone4 at a 12" distance.
I tend to use my iPhone at a distance of between 300 and 500 mm, depending on what I'm doing. I guess it's still an awesome display btw.
This is a cool post!
Now, since when we use our phones we won't be looking at white and black lines all day, try it with an image or text, or an iOS screen capture. In any real world usage, there will be very very very few humans who will be able to discern the images at 10-12 inches. We really suck at discerning color differences. In addition, text will have antialiasing resulting in low contrast color/intensity changes from pixel to pixel. It will be very difficult to identify individual pixels at normal viewing distances.
Make sure you put your viewer on "actual size" (in Preview.app this is command-0).
Is there any issue with various display resolutions and the Moire effect? Or will any display/driver combo of 1000+ pixels map the image with each line corresponding to one row of pixels? Just LCD?
Was this display designed by Apple? If not, then does Apple have exclusive rights to this display? If not, then would it be ok for anybody else who uses this display to make the same claims as Apple?
Was this display designed by Apple? If not, then does Apple have exclusive rights to this display? If not, then would it be ok for anybody else who uses this display to make the same claims as Apple?
It may be that Apple had to fund the production lines to have them made. I imagine that maybe Apple has an exclusivity arrangement with whoever makes the panel. I don't see what prevents another panel manufacturer from making their own high-ppi screen. IPS itself is a known technology, the oldest version is roughly 14 years old, with enhancements every few years. Apple might have a trademark on "Retina Display" in process, so other makers might have to make their own marketing names.
Was this display designed by Apple? If not, then does Apple have exclusive rights to this display? If not, then would it be ok for anybody else who uses this display to make the same claims as Apple?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
It may be that Apple had to fund the production lines to have them made. I imagine that maybe Apple has an exclusivity arrangement with whoever makes the panel. I don't see what prevents another panel manufacturer from making their own high-ppi screen. IPS itself is a known technology, the oldest version is roughly 14 years old, with enhancements every few years. Apple might have a trademark on "Retina Display" in process, so other makers might have to make their own marketing names.
I tried to research it and have come up with pretty much nothing.
All I found is that the display is from LG, which we knew, but I was reminded of the story of the large investment Apple made to LG back in January 2009. Perhaps a good part of that was for the development of these displays and for exclusive rights for a set duration. It seems that most vendors are using Samsung displays at this point.
The other thing is the lack of a trademark for "Retina display". They don't even capitalize the second word. They can always change it later but it looks to me like they are not owning the term at this time. I also couldn't find a reference to it on LG's website.
Back when the Nexus One came out, this same expert showed what are to my mind some serious flaws in its OLED display, showing the "cheating" they were doing with the green pixels, and how that made its claims about resolution a little shaky. The "andro-philiacs" were all in an uproar about that, questioning the doctor's qualification and/or state of fanboyness or mental derangement.
Now the very same doctor makes some qualifications in Apple's claim -- the same one that is a common saw in color printing -- that explains that perfect vision might be able to discern a pixel or two in Apple's new screen -- and the same anti-Apple androphiliacs have nothing but praise for him.
He's said, "Well, technically, that's not true." Well, technically, yes. My left eye has a Bausch & Lomb lens in it, and the optometrist said that gives me perfect vision at 12". So I'll be looking, Apple!
For those poor fools with only 20/20... or worse... well, live in your Job's paradise. I'll know for sure when I get my new iPhone on the 24th.
Now, my right lens is focused at 15', but it never does resolve well. So can somebody explain to me why I could see Avatar in IMAX 3D with perfect sharpness?
Back when the Nexus One came out, this same expert showed what are to my mind some serious flaws in its OLED display, showing the "cheating" they were doing with the green pixels, and how that made its claims about resolution a little shaky. The "andro-philiacs" were all in an uproar about that, questioning the doctor's qualification and/or state of fanboyness or mental derangement.
Now the very same doctor makes some qualifications in Apple's claim -- the same one that is a common saw in color printing -- that explains that perfect vision might be able to discern a pixel or two in Apple's new screen -- and the same anti-Apple androphiliacs have nothing but praise for him.
He's said, "Well, technically, that's not true." Well, technically, yes. My left eye has a Bausch & Lomb lens in it, and the optometrist said that gives me perfect vision at 12". So I'll be looking, Apple!
For those poor fools with only 20/20... or worse... well, live in your Job's paradise. I'll know for sure when I get my new iPhone on the 24th.
Now, my right lens is focused at 15', but it never does resolve well. So can somebody explain to me why I could see Avatar in IMAX 3D with perfect sharpness?
Soneira was quibbling, but it was Wired that took it to a whole... notha... level. 20/12 isn't even the best possible range of the human eye so his 477 claim in itself is inaccurate if we are talking about perfect eyesight being the best possible eyesight 'a' human has or ever has had. I've read that it's about 20/8 that is about the limits of human vision.
Is there any issue with various display resolutions and the Moire effect? Or will any display/driver combo of 1000+ pixels map the image with each line corresponding to one row of pixels? Just LCD?
I didn't try a CRT display, just two LCD's. A CRT will do weird things when you set the resolution too high (like that X11 login screen with a 1-pixel checkerboard...) with an image like this. In any case I think this test will work much better on an LCD than on a CRT.
For an LCD display, it's important to set your driver to the native resolution of the display (which is always a good idea of course). I tried setting my 1920x1200 display to 1600x1000 for example, and I get Moire effects with these images, yes.
It doesn't matter if the image is larger than your display, you just won't see the entire image but that's not a problem as the image is quite boring anyway My Macbook Pro has only 900 pixels in vertical direction and the test works fine.
Comments
Quite brilliant. A term no one ever heard of is the new buzzword for cutting edge display technology and seems to have completely overshadowed OLED as the greatest display achievement since the color television.
I have a feeling that this is just the tip of the iceberg if the independent (though potentially biased) reports from WWDC are any measure of what we can expect the average user with think come June 24th.
I also find it interesting that IPS seems to be getting no play here when that in itself is a great accomplishment considering that notebooks and other portable devices have long sense not used them due to the increased power requirements. Now we have IPS and 4x the pixel count while maintaining the same video playback time as the 3GS. I wonder if IPS for MBPs are coming soon?
Appreciated. It's funny how often you see people asking for the removal of spam whist quoting the spam.
if apple came out with IPS on a MBP, no matter how new the MBP what I'm running atm, I'd sell it and buy a new one in a heartbeat. In case.... Apple, is listening...
my monitors I plug into ar all IPS, but the TN on the laptop, while nice in general, doesn't cut it like an IPS.
if apple came out with IPS on a MBP, no matter how new the MBP what I'm running atm, I'd sell it and buy a new one in a heartbeat. In case.... Apple, is listening...
my monitors I plug into ar all IPS, but the TN on the laptop, while nice in general, doesn't cut it like an IPS.
Apple's notebooks displays are good, but going with a quality IPS display would make them even better.
Lenovo tried the IPS display years ago and HP has apparently brought it back just last month for their EliteBook 8740w as their branded "DreamColor". One site said it would be a $600 premium for the 10-bit S-IPS "DreamColor" display but I can't even this option at all on HP's configuration page.
The fact is that the statement was true. When Jobs talks about 'human vision', he's clearly talking about AVERAGE human vision. No doubt Superman could see the pixels on this phone - along with an insignificant percentage of mere mortals. But 20/20 vision is DEFINED as 'normal' human vision - and all the published reports agree that for someone with 20/20 vision holding the phone at 12-18", the pixels will be invisible.
Truth is truth, right? So why are you spreading lies?
People who know more than either of us say that it not only is not true, but is the wrong way of measuring visual acuity. Let's face it, Steve seldom lets the truth stand in the way of hyperbole.
I stand by the observation that he would have been better served to simply state the facts, i.e. that it is the highest resolution screen on a cell phone (when introduced) and that it looks quite good...he would say "incredible!"
Yawn.
My sentiments exactly. And you got it in the first post of this thread. This debate is done, stick a fork in it. My retina can distinguish time-wasting bullsh1t from a mile away.
8 bit would do...
Introducing... The Mario Display. Our most advanced 8-bit technology, now back due to popular demand!
It seems also that some women have a fourth type of cone, beyond the normal ones (sensitive to red, blue, green)...
Women. Always wanting more and always more sensitive...
Of course. That's how they see things that aren't there-my ex-wife must have been a tetrachromat.
In case you missed it, iPhone OS is now simply "iOS" and Mac OS X is now simply "iOS Development Platform".
NICE.
Hey, I can see Russia from my iPhone!
LOL in 2012+ they will probably start to come out with 3D displays for smartphones... and maybe the iPad will have 3D displays.
Well, I decided I had to measure the resolution of my eyes myself, using the method on the wikipedia page mentioned above. I created two 1000 x 1000 images with one-pixel black lines, one horizontal and one vertical, using this simple Matlab script:
a = repmat([1 0],1000,500);
imwrite(a ,'lines_vertical.png')
imwrite(a','lines_horizontal.png')
I put the images on my 24 inch LED Cinema Display, and on my 15 inch Macbook Pro. I measured the distance I had to move my eyes away from the display to make the lines disappear. The results were the same for the horizontal and vertical lines (both devices have square pixels so the numbers are the same as wel), so I only put the results for the vertical lines (horizontal resolution) in the table.
I couldn't figure out how to make a table on the forum so the table is over here:
Eye resolution comparison table
You can download the images here and do the test for yourself:
http://tauserver.wtb.tue.nl/basd/pics/lines/
Make sure you put your viewer on "actual size" (in Preview.app this is command-0).
I also put the Matlab script and the spreadsheet (OpenOffice format) in the directory in the second link, so you can play with it.
It turns out that my eyes have a resolution of a little bit more than 0.6 arc minutes, using this test. The last column in the table gives the values for the iPhone 4. I used 304 mm, which is 12 inches, because that is what Steve Jobs said. This is 0.88 arc minutes, so I guess I will be able to see pixels when holding the iPhone4 at a 12" distance.
I tend to use my iPhone at a distance of between 300 and 500 mm, depending on what I'm doing. I guess it's still an awesome display btw.
This is a cool post!
Now, since when we use our phones we won't be looking at white and black lines all day, try it with an image or text, or an iOS screen capture. In any real world usage, there will be very very very few humans who will be able to discern the images at 10-12 inches. We really suck at discerning color differences. In addition, text will have antialiasing resulting in low contrast color/intensity changes from pixel to pixel. It will be very difficult to identify individual pixels at normal viewing distances.
You can download the images here and do the test for yourself:
http://tauserver.wtb.tue.nl/basd/pics/lines/
Make sure you put your viewer on "actual size" (in Preview.app this is command-0).
Is there any issue with various display resolutions and the Moire effect? Or will any display/driver combo of 1000+ pixels map the image with each line corresponding to one row of pixels? Just LCD?
Was this display designed by Apple? If not, then does Apple have exclusive rights to this display? If not, then would it be ok for anybody else who uses this display to make the same claims as Apple?
It may be that Apple had to fund the production lines to have them made. I imagine that maybe Apple has an exclusivity arrangement with whoever makes the panel. I don't see what prevents another panel manufacturer from making their own high-ppi screen. IPS itself is a known technology, the oldest version is roughly 14 years old, with enhancements every few years. Apple might have a trademark on "Retina Display" in process, so other makers might have to make their own marketing names.
Was this display designed by Apple? If not, then does Apple have exclusive rights to this display? If not, then would it be ok for anybody else who uses this display to make the same claims as Apple?
It may be that Apple had to fund the production lines to have them made. I imagine that maybe Apple has an exclusivity arrangement with whoever makes the panel. I don't see what prevents another panel manufacturer from making their own high-ppi screen. IPS itself is a known technology, the oldest version is roughly 14 years old, with enhancements every few years. Apple might have a trademark on "Retina Display" in process, so other makers might have to make their own marketing names.
I tried to research it and have come up with pretty much nothing.
All I found is that the display is from LG, which we knew, but I was reminded of the story of the large investment Apple made to LG back in January 2009. Perhaps a good part of that was for the development of these displays and for exclusive rights for a set duration. It seems that most vendors are using Samsung displays at this point.
The other thing is the lack of a trademark for "Retina display". They don't even capitalize the second word. They can always change it later but it looks to me like they are not owning the term at this time. I also couldn't find a reference to it on LG's website.
Now the very same doctor makes some qualifications in Apple's claim -- the same one that is a common saw in color printing -- that explains that perfect vision might be able to discern a pixel or two in Apple's new screen -- and the same anti-Apple androphiliacs have nothing but praise for him.
He's said, "Well, technically, that's not true." Well, technically, yes. My left eye has a Bausch & Lomb lens in it, and the optometrist said that gives me perfect vision at 12". So I'll be looking, Apple!
For those poor fools with only 20/20... or worse... well, live in your Job's paradise. I'll know for sure when I get my new iPhone on the 24th.
Now, my right lens is focused at 15', but it never does resolve well. So can somebody explain to me why I could see Avatar in IMAX 3D with perfect sharpness?
Back when the Nexus One came out, this same expert showed what are to my mind some serious flaws in its OLED display, showing the "cheating" they were doing with the green pixels, and how that made its claims about resolution a little shaky. The "andro-philiacs" were all in an uproar about that, questioning the doctor's qualification and/or state of fanboyness or mental derangement.
Now the very same doctor makes some qualifications in Apple's claim -- the same one that is a common saw in color printing -- that explains that perfect vision might be able to discern a pixel or two in Apple's new screen -- and the same anti-Apple androphiliacs have nothing but praise for him.
He's said, "Well, technically, that's not true." Well, technically, yes. My left eye has a Bausch & Lomb lens in it, and the optometrist said that gives me perfect vision at 12". So I'll be looking, Apple!
For those poor fools with only 20/20... or worse... well, live in your Job's paradise. I'll know for sure when I get my new iPhone on the 24th.
Now, my right lens is focused at 15', but it never does resolve well. So can somebody explain to me why I could see Avatar in IMAX 3D with perfect sharpness?
Soneira was quibbling, but it was Wired that took it to a whole... notha... level. 20/12 isn't even the best possible range of the human eye so his 477 claim in itself is inaccurate if we are talking about perfect eyesight being the best possible eyesight 'a' human has or ever has had. I've read that it's about 20/8 that is about the limits of human vision.
Is there any issue with various display resolutions and the Moire effect? Or will any display/driver combo of 1000+ pixels map the image with each line corresponding to one row of pixels? Just LCD?
I didn't try a CRT display, just two LCD's. A CRT will do weird things when you set the resolution too high (like that X11 login screen with a 1-pixel checkerboard...) with an image like this. In any case I think this test will work much better on an LCD than on a CRT.
For an LCD display, it's important to set your driver to the native resolution of the display (which is always a good idea of course). I tried setting my 1920x1200 display to 1600x1000 for example, and I get Moire effects with these images, yes.
It doesn't matter if the image is larger than your display, you just won't see the entire image but that's not a problem as the image is quite boring anyway