I guess I wasn't aware that 1080p was a gimmick. So is the only thing that's not a gimmick is Steve Jobs definition of retina? My co-worker recently purchased an LG G3. I'll have to borrow his phone and compare the display to my 5S. My 5S looks great to me but then I never held it next to another phone with higher ppi.
It's not gimmicky to go to a higher resolution, since the magic number of 300 ppi is in itself a marketing gimmick and arbitrary number pulled out of the air. The average person has better than 20/20 vision for most of their life, or if someone who wears glasses and has any kind of decent pair at all has it corrected to above 20/20, and so can easily see the pixels on a "retina" display at the prescribed viewing distance. 400+ ppi at an average distance of 12 in/30 cm would be a better and truer implementation of "retina" technology.
I would call the label 'retina' as a gimmick, but that does not mean an Apple retina display is not very, very good.
I have regularly compared my old iphone 5 screen against the newer 4.7 inch android screen at a higher resolution that I bought for my father, and I would say one's preference would depend on your attitude to things like colour accuracy. I can't see the pixels on either at viewing distance, and on both with my nose right up to the screen.
The OLED screen really saturates greens, blues and reds. I find that so annoying that any other benefit is totally negated. On the other hand the more accurate colour palate of the iphone at the initial comparison looks duller. On repeated viewing I appreciate it more and find the android screen cartoonish.
It's not gimmicky to go to a higher resolution, since the magic number of 300 ppi is in itself a marketing gimmick and arbitrary number pulled out of the air. The average person has better than 20/20 vision for most of their life, or if someone who wears glasses and has any kind of decent pair at all has it corrected to above 20/20, and so can easily see the pixels on a "retina" display at the prescribed viewing distance. 400+ ppi at an average distance of 12 in/30 cm would be a better and truer implementation of "retina" technology.
Baloney!
I just put my glasses on to look at the screen of my iPhone 4. No pixels seen. And yes the glasses are kept up to date and are properly prescriptioned.
I guess I wasn't aware that 1080p was a gimmick. So is the only thing that's not a gimmick is Steve Jobs definition of retina? My co-worker recently purchased an LG G3. I'll have to borrow his phone and compare the display to my 5S. My 5S looks great to me but then I never held it next to another phone with higher ppi.
I guess I wasn't aware that 1080p was a gimmick. So is the only thing that's not a gimmick is Steve Jobs definition of retina? My co-worker recently purchased an LG G3. I'll have to borrow his phone and compare the display to my 5S. My 5S looks great to me but then I never held it next to another phone with higher ppi.
1080P on a phone is a gimmick. It's far beyond what any person could ever notice in terms of pixel density.
It's taking a number that people are familiar with (1080P TV's) and slapping it on a phone to make people go "oooohhh" when in fact it offers zero benefits and does nothing but suck more power.
Hmm, how about battery life, when the processor would not have to scale content provided in a standard resolution?
There have been several studies of what people do on their smartphones. Watching TV/movies is way down the list (less than 10%).
So a GPU/CPU having to scale videos for <10% of the time is going to use as much power as a high-PPI display that's sucking more power 100% of the time?
The pixel density required to eliminate most people's ability to distinguish pixelation in any way whatsoever is about 600 PPI. Being able to distinguish a pixel from other pixels is not the limit of human visual acuity thanks to the fact that a brain sits behind our eyes.
There have been several studies of what people do on their smartphones. Watching TV/movies is way down the list (less than 10%).
Are you sure? That surprises me.
In my case (which I fully appreciate is irrelevant to any discussion of the results of the survey), watching video is about 50% of my use! SkyTrain time killer.
1080P on a phone is a gimmick. It's far beyond what any person could ever notice in terms of pixel density.
It's taking a number that people are familiar with (1080P TV's) and slapping it on a phone to make people go "oooohhh" when in fact it offers zero benefits and does nothing but suck more power.
Within a few years, 1080p on TVs is going to seem like low resolution (and just for the record, there are no 1080p broadcasts - everyone is still broadcasting in either 1080i or 720p). 4K displays (which should really be called 2K displays, since they're actually 3840x2160) and within a few years 8K displays will become the standard. Having said that, I agree that on a 5" or 6" screen, you won't see any difference for photos and videos. But where increased resolution does provide a difference is in text. It becomes much easier to read and the text can be read at smaller sizes, which is a lot easier than having to expand the size with one's fingers all the time.
But I do agree that if it takes increased power, that's a big trade-off and might not be worth it until we're able to achieve much better battery life.
But where increased resolution does provide a difference is in text.
I have a lot of experience in typesetting. In the print industry, the plates are imaged at 2400+ dpi for artwork, which includes vector shapes and text. It doesn't matter how high the resolution is, if the text is below 4-5 point size, at least 50% of humans will not be able to read it without magnification. Now put that same text in a gray color on a lighter gray background and the percent of the population that can read it probably drops to around 25% and even less if the font face is a very thin typestyle. High resolution is great, but design sensibility is more important.
if the text is below 4-5 point size, at least 50% of humans will not be able to read it without magnification.
I refuse to use text smaller than 5 points for print, 6 if it's really light or in reverse (like white text on a dark background). Some clients get pissed off when they can't cram 10 lines of text into a quarter inch, but they forget that they're looking at it blown up on a computer screen. Even when you show it to them at "actual size" they say it's only blurry because a computer screen isn't as sharp as the print off the press will be.
It's probably not a career move to fight with clients, but someone has to hold the line on common sense. Plus I don't have pressmen leaving flaming bags of poo on my porch because the middle of all the O's blew out on the plate!
1080P on a phone is a gimmick. It's far beyond what any person could ever notice in terms of pixel density.
It's taking a number that people are familiar with (1080P TV's) and slapping it on a phone to make people go "oooohhh" when in fact it offers zero benefits and does nothing but suck more power.
A gimmick until Apple starts shipping phones with 1080p displays.
In my case (which I fully appreciate is irrelevant to any discussion of the results of the survey), watching video is about 50% of my use! SkyTrain time killer.
I ride Skytrain to work and I check e-mail and catch up on news. Most people I see on Skytrain seem to be playing games or checking out Facebook.
Regardless, there have been several studies regarding smartphone use. Games are #1, which makes sense considering the top earners in the App Store.
With regards to 1080p, the iPhone already supports recording at 1080p right? And the real point of HD video is to watch it on a big screen, so I don't think it is that big a deal as to whether the display resolution on the next iPhone is 1080p or not.
It may make a difference on the iPad, but frankly speaking, I simply use the Handbrake preset for Apple TV 3 to rip all my videos and that is fine for me on the iPad.
I ride Skytrain to work and I check e-mail and catch up on news. Most people I see on Skytrain seem to be playing games or checking out Facebook.
Regardless, there have been several studies regarding smartphone use. Games are #1, which makes sense considering the top earners in the App Store.
So instead of discussing whether or not 1080P is a gimmick based on perceived vs actual benefits you come back with that?
I guess I don't consider something a gimmick because someone else has it and Apple doesn't. Why are we (likely) getting a new iPhone with a bigger screen? At the iPhone 5 launch didn't Apple tell us that they went with the size they did so people could comfortably use it with one hand? Is that still going to be the case if we get a 4.7" or 5.5" phone? Isn't the larger screen essentially a response to the market and to what other phone manufacturers have done that have become popular with consumers?
It's funny that Apple fanboys have poor eyesight, and Android fanboys have good eyesight. The former cannot see the pixels in retina displays, the latter can see all the pixels in super-retina displays.
By the way, movies come in 480p, 720p, 1080p. The iPhone 5S, at 1136 x 640, can only run 480p. This is 2014.
So much anonymous hardware engineering consulting going on in the forums... Just think of what companies like Apple could achieve if only their engineers listened to forum posts about how much power video scaling requires!!! If only they listened!!!
Comments
I guess I wasn't aware that 1080p was a gimmick. So is the only thing that's not a gimmick is Steve Jobs definition of retina? My co-worker recently purchased an LG G3. I'll have to borrow his phone and compare the display to my 5S. My 5S looks great to me but then I never held it next to another phone with higher ppi.
It's not gimmicky to go to a higher resolution, since the magic number of 300 ppi is in itself a marketing gimmick and arbitrary number pulled out of the air. The average person has better than 20/20 vision for most of their life, or if someone who wears glasses and has any kind of decent pair at all has it corrected to above 20/20, and so can easily see the pixels on a "retina" display at the prescribed viewing distance. 400+ ppi at an average distance of 12 in/30 cm would be a better and truer implementation of "retina" technology.
I have regularly compared my old iphone 5 screen against the newer 4.7 inch android screen at a higher resolution that I bought for my father, and I would say one's preference would depend on your attitude to things like colour accuracy. I can't see the pixels on either at viewing distance, and on both with my nose right up to the screen.
The OLED screen really saturates greens, blues and reds. I find that so annoying that any other benefit is totally negated. On the other hand the more accurate colour palate of the iphone at the initial comparison looks duller. On repeated viewing I appreciate it more and find the android screen cartoonish.
Baloney!
I just put my glasses on to look at the screen of my iPhone 4. No pixels seen. And yes the glasses are kept up to date and are properly prescriptioned.
More elite specs: but to what end?
Seems reasonable. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever that a phone needs to follow standardized resolutions like 720P or 1080P.
Hmm, how about battery life, when the processor would not have to scale content provided in a standard resolution?
I guess I wasn't aware that 1080p was a gimmick. So is the only thing that's not a gimmick is Steve Jobs definition of retina? My co-worker recently purchased an LG G3. I'll have to borrow his phone and compare the display to my 5S. My 5S looks great to me but then I never held it next to another phone with higher ppi.
1080P on a phone is a gimmick. It's far beyond what any person could ever notice in terms of pixel density.
It's taking a number that people are familiar with (1080P TV's) and slapping it on a phone to make people go "oooohhh" when in fact it offers zero benefits and does nothing but suck more power.
Hmm, how about battery life, when the processor would not have to scale content provided in a standard resolution?
There have been several studies of what people do on their smartphones. Watching TV/movies is way down the list (less than 10%).
So a GPU/CPU having to scale videos for <10% of the time is going to use as much power as a high-PPI display that's sucking more power 100% of the time?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7743/the-pixel-density-race-and-its-technical-merits
There have been several studies of what people do on their smartphones. Watching TV/movies is way down the list (less than 10%).
Are you sure? That surprises me.
In my case (which I fully appreciate is irrelevant to any discussion of the results of the survey), watching video is about 50% of my use! SkyTrain time killer.
1080P on a phone is a gimmick. It's far beyond what any person could ever notice in terms of pixel density.
It's taking a number that people are familiar with (1080P TV's) and slapping it on a phone to make people go "oooohhh" when in fact it offers zero benefits and does nothing but suck more power.
Within a few years, 1080p on TVs is going to seem like low resolution (and just for the record, there are no 1080p broadcasts - everyone is still broadcasting in either 1080i or 720p). 4K displays (which should really be called 2K displays, since they're actually 3840x2160) and within a few years 8K displays will become the standard. Having said that, I agree that on a 5" or 6" screen, you won't see any difference for photos and videos. But where increased resolution does provide a difference is in text. It becomes much easier to read and the text can be read at smaller sizes, which is a lot easier than having to expand the size with one's fingers all the time.
But I do agree that if it takes increased power, that's a big trade-off and might not be worth it until we're able to achieve much better battery life.
I have a lot of experience in typesetting. In the print industry, the plates are imaged at 2400+ dpi for artwork, which includes vector shapes and text. It doesn't matter how high the resolution is, if the text is below 4-5 point size, at least 50% of humans will not be able to read it without magnification. Now put that same text in a gray color on a lighter gray background and the percent of the population that can read it probably drops to around 25% and even less if the font face is a very thin typestyle. High resolution is great, but design sensibility is more important.
if the text is below 4-5 point size, at least 50% of humans will not be able to read it without magnification.
I refuse to use text smaller than 5 points for print, 6 if it's really light or in reverse (like white text on a dark background). Some clients get pissed off when they can't cram 10 lines of text into a quarter inch, but they forget that they're looking at it blown up on a computer screen. Even when you show it to them at "actual size" they say it's only blurry because a computer screen isn't as sharp as the print off the press will be.
It's probably not a career move to fight with clients, but someone has to hold the line on common sense. Plus I don't have pressmen leaving flaming bags of poo on my porch because the middle of all the O's blew out on the plate!
Regardless, there have been several studies regarding smartphone use. Games are #1, which makes sense considering the top earners in the App Store.
So instead of discussing whether or not 1080P is a gimmick based on perceived vs actual benefits you come back with that?
With regards to 1080p, the iPhone already supports recording at 1080p right? And the real point of HD video is to watch it on a big screen, so I don't think it is that big a deal as to whether the display resolution on the next iPhone is 1080p or not.
It may make a difference on the iPad, but frankly speaking, I simply use the Handbrake preset for Apple TV 3 to rip all my videos and that is fine for me on the iPad.
It's funny that Apple fanboys have poor eyesight, and Android fanboys have good eyesight. The former cannot see the pixels in retina displays, the latter can see all the pixels in super-retina displays.
By the way, movies come in 480p, 720p, 1080p. The iPhone 5S, at 1136 x 640, can only run 480p. This is 2014.
/s