iPhone 4 apps will fill iPad screen, get VGA output

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 102
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Stevie View Post


    I don't think his report talked about anything that everybody can see. I think he was talking about the effects upon normal vision.



    Now you've moved your argument to 20/12 being "normal" vision. Awesome¡
  • Reply 82 of 102
    normmnormm Posts: 555member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Ahh! This time you beat me.



    The facts on eyesight is that just a small percent have "perfect" vision.



    But there is a problem with that "fact" that the good Doctor didn't mention, or isn't aware of. And that's that it's measured at 20 feet, which for our 28mm eye lens is considered to be at infinity. At 12"s the situation changes, in that most people with that prefect vision will have less than perfect vision at that close distance.



    So it's just a small percentage of a small percentage.



    In addition, that vision test is done with a high contrast target which gives the highest acuity. When contrast is lowered, acuity drops off rapidly. As most elements on displays are lower in contrast, acuity will be lower for them. The truth is that acuity varies for the same person.



    You also have to take subpixels into account. These LCD displays actually have twice the intensity resolution than the stated color pixel dpi, with several single-color subpixels used to make up one multi-color pixel. These extra subpixels allow aliasing to be reduced and make intensity changes more gradual.
  • Reply 83 of 102
    ohjoeyohjoey Posts: 3member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post


    This is the single biggest missed opportunity for the iPhone.



    Apple could have, potentially, sold a bluetooth remote and a HDMI cable and made every iPhone4 a defacto AppleTV.



    People would have plugged their iPhone in for a quick and easy rental, or to add youtube to their TV etc. What a pity!





    This would negate the fact that apple probably will be releasing a new Apple TV based on iPhone hardware and iOS software. Why offer this functionality on an iPhone when they can get us to buy another apple product.
  • Reply 84 of 102
    irelandireland Posts: 17,574member
    Hodge-podge solution.



    iPhone 4 resolution apps are a nice option to have for the iPad, but iPad apps are what's needed.
  • Reply 85 of 102
    . . . Device:. iPhone. . EVO 4G. . . Difference

    Aspect Ratio:. 1.5(3:2). 1.78(16:9). ?

    . . Diagonal:. 3.5". . . 4.3". . . . 0.8"

    . . . .Width:. 2.91". . .3.75". . . .0.84"

    . . . Height:. 1.94". . .2.11". . . .0.17"



    I'll never leave iPhone, but your figures do indicate that we can fit 28% more characters (of the same size) on a screen the size of EVO, so that means it should be 28% easier to read (all else equal, yada yada). Their target market must not read. (I'm mostly talkin websites and PDFs. Nothing too offensive like James Joyce.)
  • Reply 86 of 102
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Macerroneous View Post


    I'll never leave iPhone, but your figures do indicate that we can fit 28% more characters (of the same size) on a screen the size of EVO, so that means it should be 28% easier to read (all else equal, yada yada). Their target market must not read. (I'm mostly talkin websites and PDFs. Nothing too offensive like James Joyce.)



    I think the problem isn't with the HW, but with the SW, or more specifically the webcode most sites use. In the iPhone under General » Accessibility you can change the font size of pretty much everything on the iPhone except websites. There is also a Zoom feature in Accessibility, but that doesn't resolve the underlying issue, either.



    I find it ironic that the iPhone was the first phone to really use a full, modern browser and yet it quickly spawned a new mobile web platform designed to mimic the look and feel of iPhone OS. I think the proper resolution is for more of the web to be designed with handheld browsing in mind. AppleInsider's main site has this option but their vBulletin powered forum is still stuck in the dark ages of the internet. Note that if you save the AppleInsider site to your iPhone Home Screen it loads up (at least in iOS 4) without the top and bottom Safari bars, which mimic the look and feel or an iOS app even more.





    PS: In case anyone was wondering, I use {COLOR=#e1e1e2}[/COLOR} and [FONT="Courier New"}[/FONT} to make the chart without the forum pulling the text together as it doesn't like extraneous spaces to be used. I hope they are more readable that way.
  • Reply 87 of 102
    steviestevie Posts: 956member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Also underreported is the fact that iPhone 4 will support the iPad's VGA video output cable for delivering 1024x768 resolution,





    How old is the VGA port? I have one on my laptop, but I can't imagine ever using it.



    Does it predate the 3.5" floppy?



    And won't Apple's D-sub 15 connector output SXGA? Why did Apple use 1024x768?
  • Reply 88 of 102
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    I?m assuming that when iOS4 ships for iPad, doubled iPhone apps (even old ones) will gain sharper, non-jagged text, using the same res-independence that iOS apparently offers for older apps on iPhone 4.
  • Reply 89 of 102
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ranReloaded View Post


    I think the content creators should adapt to these mobile times we live in and author more fluid layouts.



    Web browsing kind of sucks on an iPhone. Content creators create content to the specifications of their clients. When those clients perceive the need to spend money on a special iPhone adapted web site, then it will happen. Until then it will continue to suck. There is literally no way to satisfy the expectations of both the desktop and iPhone audience with a single page layout.
  • Reply 90 of 102
    bregaladbregalad Posts: 816member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NotScott View Post


    Hey, Captain Dumbfck, the Magic Mouse isn't really magical, either. Turns out, it's just technology. Begin complaining..... now!



    "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Clarke



    Personally I don't like Apple mouses. I like to rest my hand on the mouse without it being considered touch input and I like the tactile feedback that comes from having real mechanical switches. Apple made a decent mouse back in the 90's. Their original white Bluetooth mouse had the best tracking and reliability in its day, but it had only a single button and in 2003 that was simply unacceptable.
  • Reply 91 of 102
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,507member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stuffe View Post


    He's not actually correct on this one. I think it's a good name, and a marketting concept that will resonate with people etc, but on a purely pedantic and anal assessment he is wrong. All this talk of 20/20 vision, your average persons eyesight, perfect eyesight etc isn't a part of the equation. What Jobs was was that around 300 (Let's give him +- 10% and go for 270 - 330 ppi was "the limit" of the human retina. The limit, not the average.



    Now, if you ask me the limit of human speed so far is Usain Bolt. However your average man is probably 50% slower than him over 100 meters.



    So it's a great marketing term, that whilst not being 100% accurate is probably good enough to stand up to it's claims. I think this is where Apple shine. They've taken a vastly complex subject (as proven by the pseudo-scientific back and forth arguments and discussions) and distilled it into a non technical message - 4 times more detail than your existing phone, so good your eyes can't pick fault. Compare that to some of the android manufacturers who still blind the public with science and specs. OK, Apple use terms like IPS etc during their keynotes (audience of geeks) but when it get's to the high street, that's all gone and they sell on the features, not the specs. We all know what OLED is, jonny highstreet might not, and might not care to. Meanwhile everyone understands Apple's message.



    That's come across a bit fanboy, but I think it's true. There is a lot of fair discussion to be made on the relative merits of LCD/OLED, contrast ratios, colour reproduction and all that, but 95% of consumers don't care about the how, just about the what. And Apple tends to distill and clarify the message in ways everyone else don't understand is even important yet.



    Tech kit eh? Reviewed by geeks, but bought by your dad.



    The screen resolution is good enough for a person with 20/17 vision at 12" to see it as a perfect screen. There aren't that many people with vision better than that. The closer you get to 20/12, the fewer people are in the group. Not very many left at 20/12. Actually, none. 20/13 is closer to the actual limit.



    And has been pointed out, most people will be holding the phone further away.
  • Reply 92 of 102
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,507member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Theappmachine View Post


    I 100% agree, but I think that games and text will be stunning on such a high res definition, even on a small screen. About games, the only way to "hide pixels" is to use an anti alias filter. This filter is not easy to be handled by a graphic chip but an antialiased polygon looks ten times better than a non antialiased one. The only alternative way to "hide pixels" is to increase the resolution, and this is what the so called "retina" display does.



    That's true too.
  • Reply 93 of 102
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,507member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Stevie View Post


    I think it will make a huge difference. We'll see when the new iPhone debuts.



    Given everything Apple is all about, I think the iPhone deserves to have the best screen in the industry.



    Pople can argue what that means.
  • Reply 94 of 102
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,507member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Stevie View Post


    Somebody check me out. I did the arithmetic, and I come up with 16:10.667



    The iPhone is 3:2, or 6:4, or 12:8. That's the easy way to understand it.



    But, you are also right, it would come out to 16:10.667
  • Reply 95 of 102
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,507member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    For AVERAGE people, it is not. For average people, the iPhone 4 does have pixels smaller than the eye can resolve.



    See the difference?



    Yes, for average people, the pixels are smaller than can be seen at 12" (for the 4, but not the 3GS. Even for those better than average, at 20/17, that's so.



    I think that for most of us, this argument is getting tiring.
  • Reply 96 of 102
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,507member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NormM View Post


    You also have to take subpixels into account. These LCD displays actually have twice the intensity resolution than the stated color pixel dpi, with several single-color subpixels used to make up one multi-color pixel. These extra subpixels allow aliasing to be reduced and make intensity changes more gradual.



    Yes. I've said this before, and I got an argument from someone here who refused to explain why he thought I was wrong. sub-pixels are much smaller than the entire three color pixel. Sub-pixel rendering is used to make text sharper, video sharper, and even still images sharper. It's a well understood technology.



    If we were just looking are greyscale, 960 x 640 would be the finest detail rendered by the GPU and display, but that isn't usually so in color.
  • Reply 97 of 102
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,507member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Macerroneous View Post


    . . . Device:. iPhone. . EVO 4G. . . Difference

    Aspect Ratio:. 1.5(3:2). 1.78(16:9). —

    . . Diagonal:. 3.5". . . 4.3". . . . 0.8"

    . . . .Width:. 2.91". . .3.75". . . .0.84"

    . . . Height:. 1.94". . .2.11". . . .0.17"



    I'll never leave iPhone, but your figures do indicate that we can fit 28% more characters (of the same size) on a screen the size of EVO, so that means it should be 28% easier to read (all else equal, yada yada). Their target market must not read. (I'm mostly talkin websites and PDFs. Nothing too offensive like James Joyce.)



    I don't quite understand that. Fitting more characters on a screen doesn't make it more readable. Most reading matter reformats itself for the screen width. I've been reading books on my phones for a fair number of years, and that's always been the case, starting with my Samsung i300 Palmphone. Sure, you get less on the screen, but its just as readable.



    With websites, double tap a column, and it will fill the screen.
  • Reply 98 of 102
    str1f3str1f3 Posts: 573member
    This might not last much longer if the rumors are true of the iPad getting the Retina Display in its next update.
  • Reply 99 of 102
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    No RI in OS X yet, and no RI in IOS 4 as far as we know.



    I was under the impression resolution independence has been in Mac OS X since Leopard.
  • Reply 100 of 102
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lowededwookie View Post


    I was under the impression resolution independence has been in Mac OS X since Leopard.



    It's there and has been there since before Leopard. It was also a touted feature of Leopard when demoed at WWDC in 2004(?).



    What it isn't is completed or on by default. You can test it out for yourself with a simple Terminal command and restarted any app, which included Dock, Dashboard and Finder.

    Code:


    defaults write -g AppleDisplayScaleFactor 1





    Where 1 is the default and any variation of that number is the percentage the items will change. For instance, putting in 1.17 will increase everything by 17% or putting in .8 will decrease everything to 80% of the default.



    Personally, I don't think they can bring out 10.7 until they have this squared away. Since they have offered no intermediate solution like MS has with their Windows Presentation Foundation they'll need to have this down if they ever want to offer much higher pixel density displays. Right now, I can't even go to the HD in the 15" or 17" because the elements are too small for me.
Sign In or Register to comment.