but cheaper displays often dither, because they can only display about a half million colors.
Every monitor dithers unless the image being viewed has the same aspect ratio, same number of pixels as the monitor, the same color depth of the graphics card and also being viewed at 100%. Otherwise, in either direction, up or down, it is being dithered if the pixels in the image do not precisely align with the grid of the pixels in the monitor, that is assuming the image has square pixels, which is usually not the case for video. Obviously, the more display pixels you have, the better the dithering.
Generally, the display card does that type of dithering, just at it allows one to adjust the luts in color management.
but I'm talking about the fact that many LCD panels can't display more than a half, or a million colors, therefor, the dithering of colors. IPS displays, for example, can show the entire range.
A description also used by DisplayMate for the color accuracy of Samsung Amoleds.
" tied with the Galaxy Note 5 and Galaxy S6 for the most color accurate displays that we have ever measured for a smartphone or tablet, which is visually indistinguishable from perfect, "
That's just about color accuracy (both in the case of Samsung and the iPhone). DisplayMate is very clear. To quote: "It is by far the best performing mobile LCD display that we have ever tested, "
But the Note 7 is still regarded as the best mobile display ever. Quote: "So the Galaxy Note7 becomes the Best Performing Smartphone Display that we have ever tested."
So in other words: the iPhone has the best mobile LCD ever tested and has a truly excellent screen. But the Note 7 is the best mobile display ever tested.
That review came out before the iPhone 7 review. When it did come out, and remember that Samsung gave them handpicked pre-production models, the iPhone has shown better results in almost every category.
I also feel feel the need to say that the good doctor's categorization of Samsung as having color management is wrong. Color management is a system wide implementation of the OS itself. When color management is there, it automatically reads I.c.c profiles, and assuming the display and working gamut is equal, or greater than that of the file being brought it, maps that I.c.c profile to display properly within the wider, or equal gamut, and profile that you are working in.
in addition, if additional files are opened at the same time that are tagged with different profiles, as long as each are within the working profile, all will be mapped properly, and automatically, to display properly, at the same time.
apps such as Photoshop will allow greater control over the process and working profiles, such as Pro Color, allowing all profiles, including rec 2020 to be mapped properly, assuming the monitor has a wide enough gamut.
what Samsung has is instead called screen management. That where you manually go into the screen management menu, and manually select a gamut for the screen that matches whatever file you're opening. Assuming the screen selection has the same gamut as the file, the file will look fine. But if you guess wrongly on the profile, or gamut of the file, then it won't look correct. In addition, only one profile can be matched at a time. Open two differing profiles and only one will look correct.
this is not color management. It's a defect of Android, which has no color management, and likely will never have it. Samsung did their best to work around it, but it's at best a clumsy solution that most people will never even see, much less use.
so if anything isn't sRGB, even though the Samsung screen can handle it, in theory, then the color will be terrible. How good is the screen in those circumstances?
ThI still love Hexachrome. It's too bad the expense didn't allow it to take off. I have some work with it, and it really is so much better. Regular CMYK theoretically has 256 levels per color, but you know the problems. Too much ink results in a mess. How many shops will chance 300% ink? Not too many. That leaves maybe 245 levels, maybe only 240 on good, but not great work, and less on more average work. Blacks block up so we lose as many as 20 lower levels there. Ugh.
Nope! If the file has 100% black we print 100% but if it has under colors we remove most it so we never have more than 280% total density, usually much less but the black remains solid. Black normally overprints. The way direct to plate is today and if you use great paper like TopKote, you can hold any dot with no gain.
melgross said: I hate to tell you, but it's true. I've seen it myself. Not with Barbie, because they were never a client, but with more than you would think. The major working factor is whether it's more than most people will notice or care about. When dealing with a single dye, it's not too hard, but when working with a carefully blended product, I've seen differences.
Clearly you have not worked for Barbie. Their creative directors are on scene for the entire print run and press check the color every 500 impressions. There is probably no other company as strict about their trademark color. Having worked with them has raised our standards for every other client.
But the Note 7 is the best mobile display ever tested.
Well the Note 7 may come with a pretty good display, however after a while, the display quality may degrade down to the same display quality as a piece of charcoal.
But the Note 7 is the best mobile display ever tested.
Well the Note 7 may come with a pretty good display, however after a while, the display quality may degrade down to the same display quality as a piece of charcoal.
However, i would really like the 4"7 to get Full HD, that is 1920 X 1080, and the 5"5 can get 2K . Basically that's what it would take for me to upgrade from my 6S
Why? What difference would it make?
I think to be able to say to people, "yeah, I have a 2K screen, check out my tool honey".
Unfortunately, the image links are broken. I informed the site editors, but don't know when they might get fixed...
I think the gist of the article can still be determined without the images. The basic premise is that even if one can't resolve the individual pixels, it is possible for images to beat against the grid, creating Moire effects. Anyway, the conclusion is very surprising (1200ppi for a mobile display!).
So it seems that higher resolution can in fact be detected by us humans, but not via individual pixel detection.
Now, beyond WCG and HDR, whether 1200ppi really matters to anyone is another question. If you take the position that the goal of any display is to be able to imitate life, then of course this matters. Personally, while I appreciate experiencing the ultimate in quality, there is such a thing as "close enough," at least for now. I don't mean settling for low quality, but appreciating better quality when it comes around.
Yeah. I've got about a half dozen Pantone swatch books here.
As a graphics professional you know that Pantone books are only good for one year. Since you are retired, are you still updating your Pantone books? Even so, Barbie is not part of the default book. That is a special order.
So next year the media will say the iPhone 8 with OLED is an Apple downgrade.
OLED is yet to mature, but if there is any company that can improve the current version such as increasing the yield of blue films, reducing the flicker, reduce the cost of manufacturing, etc. then I hope it will be Apple for the next iPhone.
A description also used by DisplayMate for the color accuracy of Samsung Amoleds.
" tied with the Galaxy Note 5 and Galaxy S6 for the most color accurate displays that we have ever measured for a smartphone or tablet, which is visually indistinguishable from perfect, "
That's just about color accuracy (both in the case of Samsung and the iPhone). DisplayMate is very clear. To quote: "It is by far the best performing mobile LCD display that we have ever tested, "
But the Note 7 is still regarded as the best mobile display ever. Quote: "So the Galaxy Note7 becomes the Best Performing Smartphone Display that we have ever tested."
So in other words: the iPhone has the best mobile LCD ever tested and has a truly excellent screen. But the Note 7 is the best mobile display ever tested.
As mel explained above, Galaxy Note 7 still has problem viewing profile other than sRGB which resulted in incorrect color display. But this is a mere software fix though, so hopefully Apple would improve that in the next iOS if they choose OLED for the next iPhone. Not saying that Samsung display is not good, but I would take their (DisplayMate) comment with a grain of salt seeing that at the time of the test iPhone 7 was not released yet, so of course it is entirely possibly that it's no longer valid now.
However, i would really like the 4"7 to get Full HD, that is 1920 X 1080, and the 5"5 can get 2K . Basically that's what it would take for me to upgrade from my 6S
The current 4.7" screen is 1080p and 5.5" is 2K! Apple iPhone iOS cuts the resolution in half because some old legacy apps cannot handle the higher screen resolution and it saves battery life. Third parties developers are rumor to get their apps to run at higher screen resolution by 2017!
melgross said: I hate to tell you, but it's true. I've seen it myself. Not with Barbie, because they were never a client, but with more than you would think. The major working factor is whether it's more than most people will notice or care about. When dealing with a single dye, it's not too hard, but when working with a carefully blended product, I've seen differences.
Clearly you have not worked for Barbie. Their creative directors are on scene for the entire print run and press check the color every 500 impressions. There is probably no other company as strict about their trademark color. Having worked with them has raised our standards for every other client.
I'm not talking about the print run. I'm talking about the dolls themselves, if you check them, the variation can be seen, if you look closely, and particularly if you work with color, as we do.
Yeah. I've got about a half dozen Pantone swatch books here.
As a graphics professional you know that Pantone books are only good for one year. Since you are retired, are you still updating your Pantone books? Even so, Barbie is not part of the default book. That is a special order.
Oh, I know they go out in a number of way, and simply become outdated. I don't use them anymore, but you know, nostalgia/
Unfortunately, the image links are broken. I informed the site editors, but don't know when they might get fixed...
I think the gist of the article can still be determined without the images. The basic premise is that even if one can't resolve the individual pixels, it is possible for images to beat against the grid, creating Moire effects. Anyway, the conclusion is very surprising (1200ppi for a mobile display!).
So it seems that higher resolution can in fact be detected by us humans, but not via individual pixel detection.
Now, beyond WCG and HDR, whether 1200ppi really matters to anyone is another question. If you take the position that the goal of any display is to be able to imitate life, then of course this matters. Personally, while I appreciate experiencing the ultimate in quality, there is such a thing as "close enough," at least for now. I don't mean settling for low quality, but appreciating better quality when it comes around.
Ah, I don't agree with that. First of all, Apple never assumed that 20/20 was perfect vision. They never stated that, and they never hinted that they meant that. Perfect vision, which no one can have for a number of reasons, is 20/12. The links in the first article have been fixed, by the way. 20/15 vision is rare, to say the least. In fact, there are few people with vision better than 20/18. It's a normal curve with 20/20 sitting right on the top.
the usual distance people use their phones is about 10". The reason is that most healthy people with 20/20 can't focus any more closely without eye strain, and only then for a short time. 326 actually covers people with about 20/18 vision. 20/16 would require a bit over 350, and 20/14 (almost no one can see that well) about 370.
so the 7+ covers that as well as needed. The 7 covers most everyone.
the second article is very different. While what it's saying is true, there's no evidence that super high resolutions are needed, and the article isn't even talking about viewing screens.
the first part of the article is something that is well known. From my own work when I was majoring in biology and taking anatomy, specifically sight, we understood that we could see points that we couldn't resolve. There are small eye movements called saccades. There are smaller ones called micro saccades. These compensate for the uneven resolving power of the foveola. What this does, on a fine night for viewing stars, is to move that untesolvable, yet bright enough point of light around so that it's more easily seen. But additionally, when the contrast is so high - a dark sky with tiny bright stars, the light from that star energizes the cells enough to "see" that point.
the same thing can happen outdoors, when we see a very fine telephone wire against a bright sky.
but, contrast on screens is very much lower. Also pictures, video and graphics have much lower contrast than the screen is capable of. This lowers our ability to see detail.
when getting your eyes tested, the resolution you will get depends on the contrast of the chart. Now, a lot of doctors are using charts that aren't cardboard. Some have more contrast than others. Some are dimmer than others. It depends on how long they've been used. A brighter, higher contrast target will allow you to read smaller type on the chart, and you'll think your vision is better.
also, resolution depends on color. Blue against a black background is impossible. Yellow against black is much better. One color against a similar color is very bad.
so it isn't so simple, and I caution you against reading articles like that and coming to a fixed conclusion.
Unfortunately, the image links are broken. I informed the site editors, but don't know when they might get fixed...
I think the gist of the article can still be determined without the images. The basic premise is that even if one can't resolve the individual pixels, it is possible for images to beat against the grid, creating Moire effects. Anyway, the conclusion is very surprising (1200ppi for a mobile display!).
So it seems that higher resolution can in fact be detected by us humans, but not via individual pixel detection.
Now, beyond WCG and HDR, whether 1200ppi really matters to anyone is another question. If you take the position that the goal of any display is to be able to imitate life, then of course this matters. Personally, while I appreciate experiencing the ultimate in quality, there is such a thing as "close enough," at least for now. I don't mean settling for low quality, but appreciating better quality when it comes around.
Ah, I don't agree with that. First of all, Apple never assumed that 20/20 was perfect vision. They never stated that, and they never hinted that they meant that. Perfect vision, which no one can have for a number of reasons, is 20/12. The links in the first article have been fixed, by the way. 20/15 vision is rare, to say the least. In fact, there are few people with vision better than 20/18. It's a normal curve with 20/20 sitting right on the top.
the usual distance people use their phones is about 10". The reason is that most healthy people with 20/20 can't focus any more closely without eye strain, and only then for a short time. 326 actually covers people with about 20/18 vision. 20/16 would require a bit over 350, and 20/14 (almost no one can see that well) about 370.
so the 7+ covers that as well as needed. The 7 covers most everyone.
the second article is very different. While what it's saying is true, there's no evidence that super high resolutions are needed, and the article isn't even talking about viewing screens.
the first part of the article is something that is well known. From my own work when I was majoring in biology and taking anatomy, specifically sight, we understood that we could see points that we couldn't resolve. There are small eye movements called saccades. There are smaller ones called micro saccades. These compensate for the uneven resolving power of the foveola. What this does, on a fine night for viewing stars, is to move that untesolvable, yet bright enough point of light around so that it's more easily seen. But additionally, when the contrast is so high - a dark sky with tiny bright stars, the light from that star energizes the cells enough to "see" that point.
the same thing can happen outdoors, when we see a very fine telephone wire against a bright sky.
but, contrast on screens is very much lower. Also pictures, video and graphics have much lower contrast than the screen is capable of. This lowers our ability to see detail.
when getting your eyes tested, the resolution you will get depends on the contrast of the chart. Now, a lot of doctors are using charts that aren't cardboard. Some have more contrast than others. Some are dimmer than others. It depends on how long they've been used. A brighter, higher contrast target will allow you to read smaller type on the chart, and you'll think your vision is better.
also, resolution depends on color. Blue against a black background is impossible. Yellow against black is much better. One color against a similar color is very bad.
so it isn't so simple, and I caution you against reading articles like that and coming to a fixed conclusion.
Hmm, the image links in the "How Much resolution is Enough" article still don't work for me...
Anyway, first of all, I have not come to any fixed conclusion. I'm just referring to an article that came to a conclusion. The article points out that however good one's vision is, even if one can't resolve the individual pixels, other visual artifacts (Moire, basically) can still be detected. While its true that not everyone might be able to appreciate it, the 1200ppi number the author arrives at is a number based on the fact that "Most young people, the key consumers of mobile products, can resolve somewhere between 50 and 60 cycles per degree." I have not independently confirmed that fact. I am taking her word that "Psychophysical experiments" support this. But again, the point is not how high a resolution (arc-minutes or PPI at whatever distance) can be detected by the human eye (which is also a scientifically measured and documented thing), but that the human eye can detect other visual artifacts on a pixelated display even if the specific pixel grid cannot be resolved. Although the article is not a scientific paper, it appears to be based on science, and not opinion. But that's just my opinion
The second Wikipedia article regarding hyperacuity doesn't need to bring up viewing screens specifically. It just seemed to me that any data related to the human visual system is relevant in a discussion about high quality displays. Surely, you must agree with this.
To your other point bringing up whether "super high resolutions are needed," it is odd to me hear the word "evidence" used in conjunction with this phrase. I'm not arguing whether anyone needs it (I'm not even sure I need it), but just pointing out that there is scientific evidence that says we humans can perceive it. I did pose the question whether a high level of image quality matters to anyone--but when I said "If you take the position that the goal of any display is to be able to imitate life," don't you agree that this really is the ultimate goal of display science and technology?
Unfortunately, the image links are broken. I informed the site editors, but don't know when they might get fixed...
I think the gist of the article can still be determined without the images. The basic premise is that even if one can't resolve the individual pixels, it is possible for images to beat against the grid, creating Moire effects. Anyway, the conclusion is very surprising (1200ppi for a mobile display!).
So it seems that higher resolution can in fact be detected by us humans, but not via individual pixel detection.
Now, beyond WCG and HDR, whether 1200ppi really matters to anyone is another question. If you take the position that the goal of any display is to be able to imitate life, then of course this matters. Personally, while I appreciate experiencing the ultimate in quality, there is such a thing as "close enough," at least for now. I don't mean settling for low quality, but appreciating better quality when it comes around.
Ah, I don't agree with that. First of all, Apple never assumed that 20/20 was perfect vision. They never stated that, and they never hinted that they meant that. Perfect vision, which no one can have for a number of reasons, is 20/12. The links in the first article have been fixed, by the way. 20/15 vision is rare, to say the least. In fact, there are few people with vision better than 20/18. It's a normal curve with 20/20 sitting right on the top.
the usual distance people use their phones is about 10". The reason is that most healthy people with 20/20 can't focus any more closely without eye strain, and only then for a short time. 326 actually covers people with about 20/18 vision. 20/16 would require a bit over 350, and 20/14 (almost no one can see that well) about 370.
so the 7+ covers that as well as needed. The 7 covers most everyone.
the second article is very different. While what it's saying is true, there's no evidence that super high resolutions are needed, and the article isn't even talking about viewing screens.
the first part of the article is something that is well known. From my own work when I was majoring in biology and taking anatomy, specifically sight, we understood that we could see points that we couldn't resolve. There are small eye movements called saccades. There are smaller ones called micro saccades. These compensate for the uneven resolving power of the foveola. What this does, on a fine night for viewing stars, is to move that untesolvable, yet bright enough point of light around so that it's more easily seen. But additionally, when the contrast is so high - a dark sky with tiny bright stars, the light from that star energizes the cells enough to "see" that point.
the same thing can happen outdoors, when we see a very fine telephone wire against a bright sky.
but, contrast on screens is very much lower. Also pictures, video and graphics have much lower contrast than the screen is capable of. This lowers our ability to see detail.
when getting your eyes tested, the resolution you will get depends on the contrast of the chart. Now, a lot of doctors are using charts that aren't cardboard. Some have more contrast than others. Some are dimmer than others. It depends on how long they've been used. A brighter, higher contrast target will allow you to read smaller type on the chart, and you'll think your vision is better.
also, resolution depends on color. Blue against a black background is impossible. Yellow against black is much better. One color against a similar color is very bad.
so it isn't so simple, and I caution you against reading articles like that and coming to a fixed conclusion.
Hmm, the image links in the "How Much resolution is Enough" article still don't work for me...
Anyway, first of all, I have not come to any fixed conclusion. I'm just referring to an article that came to a conclusion. The article points out that however good one's vision is, even if one can't resolve the individual pixels, other visual artifacts (Moire, basically) can still be detected. While its true that not everyone might be able to appreciate it, the 1200ppi number the author arrives at is a number based on the fact that "Most young people, the key consumers of mobile products, can resolve somewhere between 50 and 60 cycles per degree." I have not independently confirmed that fact. I am taking her word that "Psychophysical experiments" support this. But again, the point is not how high a resolution (arc-minutes or PPI at whatever distance) can be detected by the human eye (which is also a scientifically measured and documented thing), but that the human eye can detect other visual artifacts on a pixelated display even if the specific pixel grid cannot be resolved. Although the article is not a scientific paper, it appears to be based on science, and not opinion. But that's just my opinion
The second Wikipedia article regarding hyperacuity doesn't need to bring up viewing screens specifically. It just seemed to me that any data related to the human visual system is relevant in a discussion about high quality displays. Surely, you must agree with this.
To your other point bringing up whether "super high resolutions are needed," it is odd to me hear the word "evidence" used in conjunction with this phrase. I'm not arguing whether anyone needs it (I'm not even sure I need it), but just pointing out that there is scientific evidence that says we humans can perceive it. I did pose the question whether a high level of image quality matters to anyone--but when I said "If you take the position that the goal of any display is to be able to imitate life," don't you agree that this really is the ultimate goal of display science and technology?
As far as scientific evidence of high visual acuity is concerned, well, surprisingly enough, a lot of the "evidence" is itself fishy. One study of this, I forget the name now, was done in the earlier days of the personal computer, using, of all things, a Commodore Pet, with a green/black screen. The conclusions from this study have been used extensively. I read that study, and the errors in experimental design, as well as the errors in conclusions from that are enormous. Unfortunately, that was the first "modern" experimentation of visual acuity.
the biggest problem is that the green against black screen. All that tells us it the acuity of green lines on a black background. They didn't use varying contrast levels either. The same problem as in a doctor's office with their eye chart. The results are very narrow, but are interpreted widely. Too bad, because these results are used everywhere, even though they apply to very little.
the hyperacuity in the article really applies to very few situations. It certainly doesn't apply to photos, videos, most all graphics, etc. it may apply to type, which is why using subpixel rendering for letter edges does help (very slightly, depending on what the resolution is). A lot of this theoretical work is very interesting, but doesn't really apply. Once resolution is high enough, the points they make are not applicable.
A description also used by DisplayMate for the color accuracy of Samsung Amoleds.
" tied with the Galaxy Note 5 and Galaxy S6 for the most color accurate displays that we have ever measured for a smartphone or tablet, which is visually indistinguishable from perfect, "
That's just about color accuracy (both in the case of Samsung and the iPhone). DisplayMate is very clear. To quote: "It is by far the best performing mobile LCD display that we have ever tested, "
But the Note 7 is still regarded as the best mobile display ever. Quote: "So the Galaxy Note7 becomes the Best Performing Smartphone Display that we have ever tested."
So in other words: the iPhone has the best mobile LCD ever tested and has a truly excellent screen. But the Note 7 is the best mobile display ever tested.
And that's probably why Apple will switch to AMOLED next year (If they have been nice enough to Samsung). They will probably up the screen resolution FINALLY to 1K and quadHD.
Comments
but I'm talking about the fact that many LCD panels can't display more than a half, or a million colors, therefor, the dithering of colors. IPS displays, for example, can show the entire range.
That review came out before the iPhone 7 review. When it did come out, and remember that Samsung gave them handpicked pre-production models, the iPhone has shown better results in almost every category.
I also feel feel the need to say that the good doctor's categorization of Samsung as having color management is wrong. Color management is a system wide implementation of the OS itself. When color management is there, it automatically reads I.c.c profiles, and assuming the display and working gamut is equal, or greater than that of the file being brought it, maps that I.c.c profile to display properly within the wider, or equal gamut, and profile that you are working in.
in addition, if additional files are opened at the same time that are tagged with different profiles, as long as each are within the working profile, all will be mapped properly, and automatically, to display properly, at the same time.
apps such as Photoshop will allow greater control over the process and working profiles, such as Pro Color, allowing all profiles, including rec 2020 to be mapped properly, assuming the monitor has a wide enough gamut.
what Samsung has is instead called screen management. That where you manually go into the screen management menu, and manually select a gamut for the screen that matches whatever file you're opening. Assuming the screen selection has the same gamut as the file, the file will look fine. But if you guess wrongly on the profile, or gamut of the file, then it won't look correct. In addition, only one profile can be matched at a time. Open two differing profiles and only one will look correct.
this is not color management. It's a defect of Android, which has no color management, and likely will never have it. Samsung did their best to work around it, but it's at best a clumsy solution that most people will never even see, much less use.
so if anything isn't sRGB, even though the Samsung screen can handle it, in theory, then the color will be terrible. How good is the screen in those circumstances?
http://www.displaydaily.com/display-daily/9518-the-display-resolution-war-how-much-resolution-is-enough
Unfortunately, the image links are broken. I informed the site editors, but don't know when they might get fixed...
I think the gist of the article can still be determined without the images. The basic premise is that even if one can't resolve the individual pixels, it is possible for images to beat against the grid, creating Moire effects. Anyway, the conclusion is very surprising (1200ppi for a mobile display!).
The other link I like to post is for this thing called "hyperacuity," a mechanism somewhat related to the above:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperacuity_(scientific_term)
So it seems that higher resolution can in fact be detected by us humans, but not via individual pixel detection.
Now, beyond WCG and HDR, whether 1200ppi really matters to anyone is another question. If you take the position that the goal of any display is to be able to imitate life, then of course this matters. Personally, while I appreciate experiencing the ultimate in quality, there is such a thing as "close enough," at least for now. I don't mean settling for low quality, but appreciating better quality when it comes around.
the usual distance people use their phones is about 10". The reason is that most healthy people with 20/20 can't focus any more closely without eye strain, and only then for a short time. 326 actually covers people with about 20/18 vision. 20/16 would require a bit over 350, and 20/14 (almost no one can see that well) about 370.
so the 7+ covers that as well as needed. The 7 covers most everyone.
the second article is very different. While what it's saying is true, there's no evidence that super high resolutions are needed, and the article isn't even talking about viewing screens.
the first part of the article is something that is well known. From my own work when I was majoring in biology and taking anatomy, specifically sight, we understood that we could see points that we couldn't resolve. There are small eye movements called saccades. There are smaller ones called micro saccades. These compensate for the uneven resolving power of the foveola. What this does, on a fine night for viewing stars, is to move that untesolvable, yet bright enough point of light around so that it's more easily seen. But additionally, when the contrast is so high - a dark sky with tiny bright stars, the light from that star energizes the cells enough to "see" that point.
the same thing can happen outdoors, when we see a very fine telephone wire against a bright sky.
but, contrast on screens is very much lower. Also pictures, video and graphics have much lower contrast than the screen is capable of. This lowers our ability to see detail.
when getting your eyes tested, the resolution you will get depends on the contrast of the chart. Now, a lot of doctors are using charts that aren't cardboard. Some have more contrast than others. Some are dimmer than others. It depends on how long they've been used. A brighter, higher contrast target will allow you to read smaller type on the chart, and you'll think your vision is better.
also, resolution depends on color. Blue against a black background is impossible. Yellow against black is much better. One color against a similar color is very bad.
so it isn't so simple, and I caution you against reading articles like that and coming to a fixed conclusion.
Anyway, first of all, I have not come to any fixed conclusion. I'm just referring to an article that came to a conclusion. The article points out that however good one's vision is, even if one can't resolve the individual pixels, other visual artifacts (Moire, basically) can still be detected. While its true that not everyone might be able to appreciate it, the 1200ppi number the author arrives at is a number based on the fact that "Most young people, the key consumers of mobile products, can resolve somewhere between 50 and 60 cycles per degree." I have not independently confirmed that fact. I am taking her word that "Psychophysical experiments" support this. But again, the point is not how high a resolution (arc-minutes or PPI at whatever distance) can be detected by the human eye (which is also a scientifically measured and documented thing), but that the human eye can detect other visual artifacts on a pixelated display even if the specific pixel grid cannot be resolved. Although the article is not a scientific paper, it appears to be based on science, and not opinion. But that's just my opinion
The second Wikipedia article regarding hyperacuity doesn't need to bring up viewing screens specifically. It just seemed to me that any data related to the human visual system is relevant in a discussion about high quality displays. Surely, you must agree with this.
To your other point bringing up whether "super high resolutions are needed," it is odd to me hear the word "evidence" used in conjunction with this phrase. I'm not arguing whether anyone needs it (I'm not even sure I need it), but just pointing out that there is scientific evidence that says we humans can perceive it. I did pose the question whether a high level of image quality matters to anyone--but when I said "If you take the position that the goal of any display is to be able to imitate life," don't you agree that this really is the ultimate goal of display science and technology?
the biggest problem is that the green against black screen. All that tells us it the acuity of green lines on a black background. They didn't use varying contrast levels either. The same problem as in a doctor's office with their eye chart. The results are very narrow, but are interpreted widely. Too bad, because these results are used everywhere, even though they apply to very little.
the hyperacuity in the article really applies to very few situations. It certainly doesn't apply to photos, videos, most all graphics, etc. it may apply to type, which is why using subpixel rendering for letter edges does help (very slightly, depending on what the resolution is). A lot of this theoretical work is very interesting, but doesn't really apply. Once resolution is high enough, the points they make are not applicable.