Eh. Those numbers were quoted from above. Not mine, ahem.
I haven't sat down and worked out whether they're right or wrong.
But I think the numbers are academic anyhow.
When you look at the outrageous bandwidth numbers of GPUS from where they've come from...given another 5 years of that kind of progress, I can't see GPUs being under powered for the job. So, the other factors probably come into play.
300 dpi monitors. To me, it's just a series of technical hurdles to get around. We'll get there one day. But with Hi-Def guaranteeing a glut of sales for LCD up to 2010, where's the incentive?
Is the Print, Post Production market on their own enough to drive us there in the short term? Given the above numbers and arguments. I guess we won't be seeing them anytime soon. (But at least Apple is building for the future.)
Re: display that looks like paper... eventually electronic ink may get us there (I doubt it), but the problem has to do with the blacks. Currently, they're more of a gray... to get any kind of dynamic range, we need the brighter monitors (which in turn, of course, makes the grays a little bit brighter, too).
A brighter backlight doesn't change the contrast ratio in a positive way that I have ever seen. Make the whites brighter, you'll make the blacks brighter too. In fact, if you get to something like video projectors, you'll often find that the brighter ones have worse contrast ratios, the ones that have a bright mode and an economy or cinema mode also have different contrast ratios based on their modes.
I can't say anything about electronic ink because I have not seen it. Frankly, I'm pretty happy with the contrast ratio of current LCD displays. At least, the blacks on my 30" ADC are so close to black that I think that it would take a pretty fussy person to complain about it. I might have been able to get darker on my CRTs but not without a lot of adjustment trouble and significant annoyance getting there.
A brighter backlight doesn't change the contrast ratio in a positive way that I have ever seen. Make the whites brighter, you'll make the blacks brighter too. In fact, if you get to something like video projectors, you'll often find that the brighter ones have worse contrast ratios, the ones that have a bright mode and an economy or cinema mode also have different contrast ratios based on their modes.
I can't say anything about electronic ink because I have not seen it. Frankly, I'm pretty happy with the contrast ratio of current LCD displays. At least, the blacks on my 30" ADC are so close to black that I think that it would take a pretty fussy person to complain about it. I might have been able to get darker on my CRTs but not without a lot of adjustment trouble and significant annoyance getting there.
Brighter displays are better when the ambient light level is high.
The other advantage is that if the display is a really good one, it can actually be calibrated to 5,000k, which is impossible with most displays.
Photoshop aside, I just want to get some clarification.
This is going to be a user adjustable setting like it is in Windows? Where for example if you up things to 120 DPI (or "Large Fonts" as Windows Calls it) everything gets bigger? fonts, titlebars, etc?
Except unlike Windows, OS X will do a pretty job with it?
I run Windows at 192 DPI. I'm visually impaired so this allows everything to be readable and huge, but still run my LCD's at their native resolution of 1600x1200 (I tried 800x600 @ 96dpi, but everything was fuzzy [as to be expected]).
This is the *one* setting OS X doesn't have over Windows (yet), so if this is what Apple Insider is talking about, Apple has another customer
Photoshop aside, I just want to get some clarification.
This is going to be a user adjustable setting like it is in Windows? Where for example if you up things to 120 DPI (or "Large Fonts" as Windows Calls it) everything gets bigger? fonts, titlebars, etc?
Except unlike Windows, OS X will do a pretty job with it?
I run Windows at 192 DPI. I'm visually impaired so this allows everything to be readable and huge, but still run my LCD's at their native resolution of 1600x1200 (I tried 800x600 @ 96dpi, but everything was fuzzy [as to be expected]).
This is the *one* setting OS X doesn't have over Windows (yet), so if this is what Apple Insider is talking about, Apple has another customer
- D
RI is very different. You can raise the size of the fonts in OS X as well, but that doesn't equate to RI.
RI is the ability to change the rez of the entire screen. In other words, everything will change in size equally.
But, it also changes the size of everything by interpolating it into a higher rez object. This is done by having most factors being composed of vector calculations, rather than using bitmaps.
Fonts are done this way now, which is why they look better, the larger they are. Icons on the Mac are done the same way (well, almost). There is interpolation going on. But, there is more than one size for the icon. Interpolation can average out the detail when changing sizes. Try to change the size of the screen icons by going to prefs. You'll see that they remain sharp. Possibly seeming to gain in detail.
RI will do that to most all elements of the desktop, or programs within, if they are rewritten to take advantage of it.
Pixel papped objects, such as photo's, are different. They can be interpolated as PS does it, but past a certain size, they lose sharpness. The memory required to store larger versions becomes immense.
Going the other way, that is, from "normal" to a smaller apparent screen rez, is the opposite, less memory would be required for bit mapped graphics.
Apple has modes that can give an idea of how this works, in an imperfect way.
You can go to Sys Prefs/Unlversal Access, and turn Zoom on. Follow the options. As I say, it isn't the same, but you will get some idea.
Resolution independence is a bit different that that. It has little to do with a user actively scaling something. Resolution independence is simply breaking the bit-mapped pixel related dependence of graphical objects.
For example a 120x120 pixel graphic (icon?) displayed as a bit map @ 100% will always be 120 pixels by 120 pixels. Now display that on an older 72dpi monitor and the graphic will be approximately 1.7 inches square [yes that's a bit old but the math is easy]. Now display the same graphic on a 160dpi iPhone screen, the same graphic now shrinks to 3/4 of an inch square. A resolution independent version would always stay at the same physical size regardless of the screen dpi resolution.
The big win is with the ever increasing dpi counts in monitors we wont need magnifying glasses or need to tell our OS to use some mongo-sized font to maintain a consistent appearance across all monitors. All that scaling and adjustment is done "behind the Green Curtain", no user intervention necessary.
I understand the pixel mapped stuff, the same goes for Windows. When I enlarge the DPI, a 32x32 icon is very small on the screen, so I up the icon to 72x72 to fit the scale of everything else.
Basically what I'm trying to get at, in it's simplest form, well this be a user adjustable (one time, in sys prefs type thing) setting that will make everything appear bigger, or smaller? I realize certain things won't scale, but as long as I can make the major of the fonts and what not bigger, I should be ok
I understand the pixel mapped stuff, the same goes for Windows. When I enlarge the DPI, a 32x32 icon is very small on the screen, so I up the icon to 72x72 to fit the scale of everything else.
Basically what I'm trying to get at, in it's simplest form, well this be a user adjustable (one time, in sys prefs type thing) setting that will make everything appear bigger, or smaller? I realize certain things won't scale, but as long as I can make the major of the fonts and what not bigger, I should be ok
I understand the pixel mapped stuff, the same goes for Windows. When I enlarge the DPI, a 32x32 icon is very small on the screen, so I up the icon to 72x72 to fit the scale of everything else.
Basically what I'm trying to get at, in it's simplest form, well this be a user adjustable (one time, in sys prefs type thing) setting that will make everything appear bigger, or smaller? I realize certain things won't scale, but as long as I can make the major of the fonts and what not bigger, I should be ok
I think it will be user adjustable. I've seen sample images of super-scaled OS X windows. It looked nice and smooth, not like using a low resolution setting on a high resolution screen.
The old windows system was such that you can increase all the font sizes, but that's it. The problem was that it broke a lot of dialogue boxes because the text ran off the edge, and picture sizes did not change, only font sizes. I think both Vista and Leopard both offer a user adjustable way that it scales everything up equally.
I think it will be user adjustable. I've seen sample images of super-scaled OS X windows. It looked nice and smooth, not like using a low resolution setting on a high resolution screen.
I think it will be user adjustable. I've seen sample images of super-scaled OS X windows. It looked nice and smooth, not like using a low resolution setting on a high resolution screen.
The old windows system was such that you can increase all the font sizes, but that's it. The problem was that it broke a lot of dialogue boxes because the text ran off the edge, and picture sizes did not change, only font sizes. I think both Vista and Leopard both offer a user adjustable way that it scales everything up equally.
Big and doesn't mess up the dialogs, is exactly what I'm after
I suppose I'll have to wait and see what Leopord brings.
Sharp on screen but crap when printed makes sense because today's displays are lower res than printed material. Granted, there are certainly difference between reflected and emitted images. But we're still a long way from surpassing the resolutive power of the human eye/brain.
I've had the opportunity to look at experimental, high resolution LCDs. They are mind blowing to say the least. With some of these displays and normal viewing distances, it was hard to know if I was looking at printed material or not.
(Then the demo ended and convention goers were treated to a microscopic representation of WinXP. The start button looked like a speck of sand. I laughed my ass off at the IBM booth people trying to operate the machine at that point. )
OW
i wish i could time travel back to 06 and say its still did not happen yet in 09 .
Resolution independence is a bit different that that. It has little to do with a user actively scaling something. Resolution independence is simply breaking the bit-mapped pixel related dependence of graphical objects.
For example a 120x120 pixel graphic (icon?) displayed as a bit map @ 100% will always be 120 pixels by 120 pixels. Now display that on an older 72dpi monitor and the graphic will be approximately 1.7 inches square [yes that's a bit old but the math is easy]. Now display the same graphic on a 160dpi iPhone screen, the same graphic now shrinks to 3/4 of an inch square. A resolution independent version would always stay at the same physical size regardless of the screen dpi resolution.
The big win is with the ever increasing dpi counts in monitors we wont need magnifying glasses or need to tell our OS to use some mongo-sized font to maintain a consistent appearance across all monitors. All that scaling and adjustment is done "behind the Green Curtain", no user intervention necessary.
Resolution independence is a bit different that that. It has little to do with a user actively scaling something. Resolution independence is simply breaking the bit-mapped pixel related dependence of graphical objects.
For example a 120x120 pixel graphic (icon?) displayed as a bit map @ 100% will always be 120 pixels by 120 pixels. Now display that on an older 72dpi monitor and the graphic will be approximately 1.7 inches square [yes that's a bit old but the math is easy]. Now display the same graphic on a 160dpi iPhone screen, the same graphic now shrinks to 3/4 of an inch square. A resolution independent version would always stay at the same physical size regardless of the screen dpi resolution.
The big win is with the ever increasing dpi counts in monitors we wont need magnifying glasses or need to tell our OS to use some mongo-sized font to maintain a consistent appearance across all monitors. All that scaling and adjustment is done "behind the Green Curtain", no user intervention necessary.
That's essentially what I said. But with RI on a Mac, the actual rez of the monitor remains the same, but the use of that rez changes, not like going from a large screen to an iPhone sized screen.
On a 1600 x 1200 screen then, if you double the size (linearly) of the desktop elements, you end up with a desktop with less elements, which is what you would get if that same size screen was of 800 x 600 rez, but much sharper, as the full 1600 x 1200 is being used with vector graphics. Or at least, that's the concept. Not everything will be fully vector, so it won't be perfect.
Comments
Blush.
Eh. Those numbers were quoted from above. Not mine, ahem.
I haven't sat down and worked out whether they're right or wrong.
But I think the numbers are academic anyhow.
When you look at the outrageous bandwidth numbers of GPUS from where they've come from...given another 5 years of that kind of progress, I can't see GPUs being under powered for the job. So, the other factors probably come into play.
300 dpi monitors. To me, it's just a series of technical hurdles to get around. We'll get there one day. But with Hi-Def guaranteeing a glut of sales for LCD up to 2010, where's the incentive?
Is the Print, Post Production market on their own enough to drive us there in the short term? Given the above numbers and arguments. I guess we won't be seeing them anytime soon. (But at least Apple is building for the future.)
But one day...
Lemon Bon Bon
Re: display that looks like paper... eventually electronic ink may get us there (I doubt it), but the problem has to do with the blacks. Currently, they're more of a gray... to get any kind of dynamic range, we need the brighter monitors (which in turn, of course, makes the grays a little bit brighter, too).
A brighter backlight doesn't change the contrast ratio in a positive way that I have ever seen. Make the whites brighter, you'll make the blacks brighter too. In fact, if you get to something like video projectors, you'll often find that the brighter ones have worse contrast ratios, the ones that have a bright mode and an economy or cinema mode also have different contrast ratios based on their modes.
I can't say anything about electronic ink because I have not seen it. Frankly, I'm pretty happy with the contrast ratio of current LCD displays. At least, the blacks on my 30" ADC are so close to black that I think that it would take a pretty fussy person to complain about it. I might have been able to get darker on my CRTs but not without a lot of adjustment trouble and significant annoyance getting there.
A brighter backlight doesn't change the contrast ratio in a positive way that I have ever seen. Make the whites brighter, you'll make the blacks brighter too. In fact, if you get to something like video projectors, you'll often find that the brighter ones have worse contrast ratios, the ones that have a bright mode and an economy or cinema mode also have different contrast ratios based on their modes.
I can't say anything about electronic ink because I have not seen it. Frankly, I'm pretty happy with the contrast ratio of current LCD displays. At least, the blacks on my 30" ADC are so close to black that I think that it would take a pretty fussy person to complain about it. I might have been able to get darker on my CRTs but not without a lot of adjustment trouble and significant annoyance getting there.
Brighter displays are better when the ambient light level is high.
The other advantage is that if the display is a really good one, it can actually be calibrated to 5,000k, which is impossible with most displays.
This is going to be a user adjustable setting like it is in Windows? Where for example if you up things to 120 DPI (or "Large Fonts" as Windows Calls it) everything gets bigger? fonts, titlebars, etc?
Except unlike Windows, OS X will do a pretty job with it?
I run Windows at 192 DPI. I'm visually impaired so this allows everything to be readable and huge, but still run my LCD's at their native resolution of 1600x1200 (I tried 800x600 @ 96dpi, but everything was fuzzy [as to be expected]).
This is the *one* setting OS X doesn't have over Windows (yet), so if this is what Apple Insider is talking about, Apple has another customer
- D
Photoshop aside, I just want to get some clarification.
This is going to be a user adjustable setting like it is in Windows? Where for example if you up things to 120 DPI (or "Large Fonts" as Windows Calls it) everything gets bigger? fonts, titlebars, etc?
Except unlike Windows, OS X will do a pretty job with it?
I run Windows at 192 DPI. I'm visually impaired so this allows everything to be readable and huge, but still run my LCD's at their native resolution of 1600x1200 (I tried 800x600 @ 96dpi, but everything was fuzzy [as to be expected]).
This is the *one* setting OS X doesn't have over Windows (yet), so if this is what Apple Insider is talking about, Apple has another customer
- D
RI is very different. You can raise the size of the fonts in OS X as well, but that doesn't equate to RI.
RI is the ability to change the rez of the entire screen. In other words, everything will change in size equally.
But, it also changes the size of everything by interpolating it into a higher rez object. This is done by having most factors being composed of vector calculations, rather than using bitmaps.
Fonts are done this way now, which is why they look better, the larger they are. Icons on the Mac are done the same way (well, almost). There is interpolation going on. But, there is more than one size for the icon. Interpolation can average out the detail when changing sizes. Try to change the size of the screen icons by going to prefs. You'll see that they remain sharp. Possibly seeming to gain in detail.
RI will do that to most all elements of the desktop, or programs within, if they are rewritten to take advantage of it.
Pixel papped objects, such as photo's, are different. They can be interpolated as PS does it, but past a certain size, they lose sharpness. The memory required to store larger versions becomes immense.
Going the other way, that is, from "normal" to a smaller apparent screen rez, is the opposite, less memory would be required for bit mapped graphics.
Apple has modes that can give an idea of how this works, in an imperfect way.
You can go to Sys Prefs/Unlversal Access, and turn Zoom on. Follow the options. As I say, it isn't the same, but you will get some idea.
For example a 120x120 pixel graphic (icon?) displayed as a bit map @ 100% will always be 120 pixels by 120 pixels. Now display that on an older 72dpi monitor and the graphic will be approximately 1.7 inches square [yes that's a bit old but the math is easy]. Now display the same graphic on a 160dpi iPhone screen, the same graphic now shrinks to 3/4 of an inch square. A resolution independent version would always stay at the same physical size regardless of the screen dpi resolution.
The big win is with the ever increasing dpi counts in monitors we wont need magnifying glasses or need to tell our OS to use some mongo-sized font to maintain a consistent appearance across all monitors. All that scaling and adjustment is done "behind the Green Curtain", no user intervention necessary.
Basically what I'm trying to get at, in it's simplest form, well this be a user adjustable (one time, in sys prefs type thing) setting that will make everything appear bigger, or smaller? I realize certain things won't scale, but as long as I can make the major of the fonts and what not bigger, I should be ok
- D
I understand the pixel mapped stuff, the same goes for Windows. When I enlarge the DPI, a 32x32 icon is very small on the screen, so I up the icon to 72x72 to fit the scale of everything else.
Basically what I'm trying to get at, in it's simplest form, well this be a user adjustable (one time, in sys prefs type thing) setting that will make everything appear bigger, or smaller? I realize certain things won't scale, but as long as I can make the major of the fonts and what not bigger, I should be ok
- D
That's the idea.
Like this;
Is that big enough for ya?
I understand the pixel mapped stuff, the same goes for Windows. When I enlarge the DPI, a 32x32 icon is very small on the screen, so I up the icon to 72x72 to fit the scale of everything else.
Basically what I'm trying to get at, in it's simplest form, well this be a user adjustable (one time, in sys prefs type thing) setting that will make everything appear bigger, or smaller? I realize certain things won't scale, but as long as I can make the major of the fonts and what not bigger, I should be ok
I think it will be user adjustable. I've seen sample images of super-scaled OS X windows. It looked nice and smooth, not like using a low resolution setting on a high resolution screen.
The old windows system was such that you can increase all the font sizes, but that's it. The problem was that it broke a lot of dialogue boxes because the text ran off the edge, and picture sizes did not change, only font sizes. I think both Vista and Leopard both offer a user adjustable way that it scales everything up equally.
I think it will be user adjustable. I've seen sample images of super-scaled OS X windows. It looked nice and smooth, not like using a low resolution setting on a high resolution screen.
Yeah.
Straight from the horse's mouth:
I think it will be user adjustable. I've seen sample images of super-scaled OS X windows. It looked nice and smooth, not like using a low resolution setting on a high resolution screen.
The old windows system was such that you can increase all the font sizes, but that's it. The problem was that it broke a lot of dialogue boxes because the text ran off the edge, and picture sizes did not change, only font sizes. I think both Vista and Leopard both offer a user adjustable way that it scales everything up equally.
Big and doesn't mess up the dialogs, is exactly what I'm after
I suppose I'll have to wait and see what Leopord brings.
- D
Sharp on screen but crap when printed makes sense because today's displays are lower res than printed material. Granted, there are certainly difference between reflected and emitted images. But we're still a long way from surpassing the resolutive power of the human eye/brain.
I've had the opportunity to look at experimental, high resolution LCDs. They are mind blowing to say the least. With some of these displays and normal viewing distances, it was hard to know if I was looking at printed material or not.
(Then the demo ended and convention goers were treated to a microscopic representation of WinXP. The start button looked like a speck of sand. I laughed my ass off at the IBM booth people trying to operate the machine at that point.
OW
i wish i could time travel back to 06 and say its still did not happen yet in 09 .
great read .
Resolution independence is a bit different that that. It has little to do with a user actively scaling something. Resolution independence is simply breaking the bit-mapped pixel related dependence of graphical objects.
For example a 120x120 pixel graphic (icon?) displayed as a bit map @ 100% will always be 120 pixels by 120 pixels. Now display that on an older 72dpi monitor and the graphic will be approximately 1.7 inches square [yes that's a bit old but the math is easy]. Now display the same graphic on a 160dpi iPhone screen, the same graphic now shrinks to 3/4 of an inch square. A resolution independent version would always stay at the same physical size regardless of the screen dpi resolution.
The big win is with the ever increasing dpi counts in monitors we wont need magnifying glasses or need to tell our OS to use some mongo-sized font to maintain a consistent appearance across all monitors. All that scaling and adjustment is done "behind the Green Curtain", no user intervention necessary.
This post explains it best .
Does hiro still post here ?
9
Does hiro still post here ?
If you mean AI in general, yes. With over 700 posts here you didn't know how to check that?
i thought the thread title was "Resolution Independence in Snow Leopard confirmed by Apple"...you read what you want to read I guess.
Here's a link on spatial acuity and ppi:
http://aeronautics.arc.nasa.gov/asse...DEAC04_5-1.pdf
See the intensity section on the impact of intensity on visbility.
Resolution independence is a bit different that that. It has little to do with a user actively scaling something. Resolution independence is simply breaking the bit-mapped pixel related dependence of graphical objects.
For example a 120x120 pixel graphic (icon?) displayed as a bit map @ 100% will always be 120 pixels by 120 pixels. Now display that on an older 72dpi monitor and the graphic will be approximately 1.7 inches square [yes that's a bit old but the math is easy]. Now display the same graphic on a 160dpi iPhone screen, the same graphic now shrinks to 3/4 of an inch square. A resolution independent version would always stay at the same physical size regardless of the screen dpi resolution.
The big win is with the ever increasing dpi counts in monitors we wont need magnifying glasses or need to tell our OS to use some mongo-sized font to maintain a consistent appearance across all monitors. All that scaling and adjustment is done "behind the Green Curtain", no user intervention necessary.
That's essentially what I said. But with RI on a Mac, the actual rez of the monitor remains the same, but the use of that rez changes, not like going from a large screen to an iPhone sized screen.
On a 1600 x 1200 screen then, if you double the size (linearly) of the desktop elements, you end up with a desktop with less elements, which is what you would get if that same size screen was of 800 x 600 rez, but much sharper, as the full 1600 x 1200 is being used with vector graphics. Or at least, that's the concept. Not everything will be fully vector, so it won't be perfect.
I just thought I'd throw in the fact that Apple has said all developars need to make their icons 512 x 512px's.
Like this;
Is that big enough for ya?
Ooooh! Pretty!