I wonder how advanced Apple's new process, in order to make this display, is. Curious to know how much investment and time would be required in order for the competition to replicate or improve on it.
Any experts out there have a clue on this?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Apple isn't the one that actually makes the display itself. If that's the case, then I'd say it won't be too long before it starts showing up in the competition.
Who do you think is creating this technology for Apple and providing these specs?? Bloggers?? This was made by scientists and technological engineers. It's also being disputed by a scientist, but one who happens to work for the competition, NOT an impartial one. His analysis is worthless.
Specs? That's comedy. Saying a display is so hi-rez that the human eye can't see more detail anyway is not a spec, it's marketing hyperbole, and it's no surprise to find it challenged.
Are you saying apple's "scientists" who spin positive rhetoric about the new iPhone are irrefutable, but anyone challenging the claims must automatically be a fraud? Comon.
Anyway, I don't think it matters. It's the best display on a mobile phone to date. That makes it good enough, regardless of whether it's a true retina display or not.
When the iPhone 4 drops it will sell like oxcoton crack cookies.HTC can boast an 8 mega pix camera and a big screen. That is all. Apple has the support,the ecosystem etc. Apple has thier own OS. Therefore Apple can do anything with the iPhone without restrictions.iPhone is a seamless masterpiece.
HTC can take a Hike.
IT
Wait until the 2nd generation ipad comes out.
OMG!
"oxycoton crack cookies"...LMAO that made my day but true, this new iPhone is gonna make all the others out there look so last year....
Apple gets nothing but hurt for creating the highest ppi for mobile devises, so what happens when Microsoft creates a bogus display technology? They get showered with awards!
ClearType was created through an extremely complex and scientific procedure. Over the course of two years, Microsoft researchers studied typography and the psychology of reading in order to create ClearType.
The angular resolution of the eye is 1', that is to say 1 mm at 3 m (or 100 km on the Moon).
A 300 dpi display means each pixel is 25.4/300 = 84.7 µm.
So this corresponds to the angular resolution of the eye at 3 * 0.0847 = 0.254 m or 25.4 cm (10 ").
BINGO !
Simple calculation. Simple Answer.
And the bonus is that it is pretty much correct.
(Only adjustment is 1 minute is more like 3,438 to 1, rather than 3,000 to 1. Which results in 11.5" instead of 10".... But the 1 minute is an approximation anyway. It's in the freakin' ball park....)
Sounds similar to claims made by Audio Experts about Fidelity in Stereo Systems
Which, like this, is useless since most Folks can't hear worth a damn, and are blind
.
But know this much is True
We can all "see" the iPhone has the Wannabes scared chitless
Even with no pixels per inch
.
That's right to the point. First, "HiFi" was introduced as a war of stats, and the higher (or lower) numbers were held to be all-important. "Mine's got 20000 Hz.!" is a good example. Thing is, almost no people can hear 20,000 Hz, particularly if you've gone to a few loud rock concerts in your youth, after about 30 years old.
Objectively, it's true, I presume, that the retina can resolve to another 100 pixels or so. But most eyes cannot. For a long time, printers have regarded the line of 300 dpi to be where pixels/dots disappear. That's the crucial thing. At 366 dpi, only the very most acute instruments can detect the dots. In a lab.
Meanwhile, theoretically, mp3s sound like crap. The golden-eared people with expensive "hifis" will be able to detect, through their $20,000 speakers and fancy metal connectors ($20,000) that there is a difference. Meanwhile, the world prefers digital files because they're tiny and transportable, and most cannot tell the difference.
Well, if we're actually going to take this pixel-picking click bait seriously...
"...18 inches from the eye, much farther than standard use for a mobile handset."
Curious, I picked up both my handheld and a tape measure, repeatedly, standing, sitting, walking... Invariably, I hold mine somewhere between 15"-22" from my face. Of course this is asinine, but good for a laugh. Try holding an object 12" from your eyes and reading 9 pt type.
this is the first time i've heard of Soniera.. so I can't speak to his qualifications, but I know badastronomer is a really smart dude.
and by the way.. this really is waaaaay to much math to be doing to determine whether or not the screen looks good. I don't care what it says on paper.. does it look better than the one I have now? yes or no is all i need to know. I don't necessarily care how or why
So what does all this mean for the iPhone? First, here are the claims.
Jobs claims the iPhone held at 12 inches from your face has pixels too small to be resolved by your eye. Soneira, the display expert quoted in the magazine articles, disputes that. He uses the 0.6 arcmin resolution for the human eye (so we use the scale factor = 5730). Let’s use that and run the numbers.
Something 12 inches away means your eye can resolve dots that are bigger than
12 inches / 5730 = 0.0021 inches
So if the pixels on the iPhone are smaller than 0.0021 inches in size, then Jobs is right. Your eye won’t resolve them. If the pixels are bigger, Soneira is right, and your eye can resolve them.
The actual iPhone 4 has 326 pixels per inch (the display is 960 pixels high, and about 2.9 inches in length). You have to flip that to get the size of the pixel in inches:
1 / 326 = 0.0031 inches
Uh oh! Things look bad for Jobs. The iPhone pixels are too big! At one foot away, your eye can resolve the pixels, and Jobs must be lying!
Or is he? Remember, Soneira used the 0.6 arcmin resolution of the eye, but that’s for perfect eyesight. Most people don’t have perfect eyesight. I sure don’t. A better number for a typical person is more like 1 arcmin resolution, not 0.6. In fact, Wikipedia lists 20/20 vision as being 1 arcmin, so there you go.
If I use 1 arcminute instead, the scale factor is smaller, about 3438. So let’s convert that to inches to see how small a pixel the human eye can resolve at a distance of one foot:
12 inches / 3438 = 0.0035 inches
Aha! This means that to a more average eye, pixels smaller than this are unresolved. Since the iPhone’s pixels are 0.0031 inches on a side, it works! Jobs is actually correct.
[Note: in the articles about all this, they used units of pixels per inch, whereas I've used the size of the pixels themselves. You can flip all these numbers to convert. The iPhone4 has a resolution of 326 ppi (pixels per inch). Soleira says the eye can resolve 1 / 0.0021 = 477 ppi. However, normal vision can see at 1 / 0.0035 = 286 ppi. So the density of pixels in the iPhone 4 is safely higher than can be resolved by the normal eye, but lower than what can be resolved by someone with perfect vision.]
Has Apple an exclusive right to implement those screens? Otherwise there will be similar (LG) Android phones soon.
Good question. The Evo 4G is a TFT display and those AMOLED displays are using a quasi-pixel count. I wonder if iSuppli is going to have an accurate cost of the iPhone 4's display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Apple always has to name their version of whatever technology, just like in Magic Mouse.
He should have just said it is a beautiful thing to behold and we call it 'Retina' and left it at that. They never said their mouse actually performed any magic. But he had to open up a can of worms with his sudo-scientific explanation. Some people, like Steve, are nearsighted and hold it close to their eyes and others are farsighted, like me, and I hold it as far away as I can. Everybody is different. I'm sure the screen will impress nearly everyone once they get their hands on one.
Apple is well managed and makes great products, but they really do know how to market themselves better than anyone else. I've been tired of the OLED buzzword since it came out. They are great in certain areas but they fail in some others that they are a bad choice for mobiles, yet it's highly marketable. Jobs came on stage and completely trounced OLED with an entirely new marketing buzzword.
The fact that it's being debated at all by "scientistis" is a testament to their marketing prowess. The bottom line is that the iPhone 4 will have an (actual) 326 ppi IPS display that is better than anything else on the market. Even those scientists that say Jobs wasn't accurate about what the eye can see have to be impressed with the display on the next iPhone and that's all that really matters in the end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
OK, Stevie is, beyond almost all doubt, the one, the only, the original, wait for it... tekstud!
He's the only troll I can recall who uses that specific phrase.
Aha! This means that to a more average eye, pixels smaller than this are unresolved. Since the iPhone?s pixels are 0.0031 inches on a side, it works! Jobs is actually correct.
[...]
This type of data has been posted all over the nets all week, but this is the first time I truly understood it. Thanks!
Apple gets nothing but hurt for creating the highest ppi for mobile devises, so what happens when Microsoft creates a bogus display technology? They get showered with awards!
ClearType was created through an extremely complex and scientific procedure. Over the course of two years, Microsoft researchers studied typography and the psychology of reading in order to create ClearType.
Showered with awards? Where? I only found *one* obscure award MS got for ClearType, back in 1999. It's no panacea, but don't think it's a bogus technology, it was noticeably clearer than full-pixel anti-aliasing. Not sure why you brought Microsoft and ClearType up, I didn't see anyone talk about those before or in the article. Besides, technology wasn't ready for affordable ultra-high dpis until now, and desktop/notebook computers still aren't there yet, Apple still hasn't rolled out full resolution independence on the Macs, nor has any other desktop OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift
At 366 dpi, only the very most acute instruments can detect the dots. In a lab.
I don't know where you get that, that sounds like you're blowing smoke. I've had ordinary consumer scanners clearly resolve thousands of lines per inch, the fibers of the paper can look like logs. The best optical microscope can read down to 0.2 μm, I think that translates down to about 128,000dpi. Some types of lab equipment can detect atoms, which is far smaller.
Comments
Please stop reading my posts.
OK, Stevie is, beyond almost all doubt, the one, the only, the original, wait for it... tekstud!
He's the only troll I can recall who uses that specific phrase.
The competition is heating up.
I wonder how advanced Apple's new process, in order to make this display, is. Curious to know how much investment and time would be required in order for the competition to replicate or improve on it.
Any experts out there have a clue on this?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Apple isn't the one that actually makes the display itself. If that's the case, then I'd say it won't be too long before it starts showing up in the competition.
OK, Stevie is, beyond almost all doubt, the one, the only, the original, wait for it... tekstud!
Wrong. Yet again.
Who do you think is creating this technology for Apple and providing these specs?? Bloggers?? This was made by scientists and technological engineers. It's also being disputed by a scientist, but one who happens to work for the competition, NOT an impartial one. His analysis is worthless.
Specs? That's comedy. Saying a display is so hi-rez that the human eye can't see more detail anyway is not a spec, it's marketing hyperbole, and it's no surprise to find it challenged.
Are you saying apple's "scientists" who spin positive rhetoric about the new iPhone are irrefutable, but anyone challenging the claims must automatically be a fraud? Comon.
http://www.medgadget.com/archives/20...s_it_mean.html
Anyway, I don't think it matters. It's the best display on a mobile phone to date. That makes it good enough, regardless of whether it's a true retina display or not.
Wrong. Yet again.
I think not, tek.
When the iPhone 4 drops it will sell like oxcoton crack cookies.HTC can boast an 8 mega pix camera and a big screen. That is all. Apple has the support,the ecosystem etc. Apple has thier own OS. Therefore Apple can do anything with the iPhone without restrictions.iPhone is a seamless masterpiece.
HTC can take a Hike.
IT
Wait until the 2nd generation ipad comes out.
OMG!
"oxycoton crack cookies"...LMAO that made my day
I think not, tek.
Your thoughts and the facts diverge to point of being distinct.
Your thoughts and the facts diverge to point of being distinct.
Hey, you slipped up and used one of your stock phrases. You had a good run, but now you're exposed.
Unless I've confused you with our other fiend, iGenius, but you are definitely outed as one or the other.
ClearType was created through an extremely complex and scientific procedure. Over the course of two years, Microsoft researchers studied typography and the psychology of reading in order to create ClearType.
The angular resolution of the eye is 1', that is to say 1 mm at 3 m (or 100 km on the Moon).
A 300 dpi display means each pixel is 25.4/300 = 84.7 µm.
So this corresponds to the angular resolution of the eye at 3 * 0.0847 = 0.254 m or 25.4 cm (10 ").
BINGO !
Simple calculation. Simple Answer.
And the bonus is that it is pretty much correct.
(Only adjustment is 1 minute is more like 3,438 to 1, rather than 3,000 to 1. Which results in 11.5" instead of 10".... But the 1 minute is an approximation anyway. It's in the freakin' ball park....)
.
Sounds similar to claims made by Audio Experts about Fidelity in Stereo Systems
Which, like this, is useless since most Folks can't hear worth a damn, and are blind
.
But know this much is True
We can all "see" the iPhone has the Wannabes scared chitless
Even with no pixels per inch
.
That's right to the point. First, "HiFi" was introduced as a war of stats, and the higher (or lower) numbers were held to be all-important. "Mine's got 20000 Hz.!" is a good example. Thing is, almost no people can hear 20,000 Hz, particularly if you've gone to a few loud rock concerts in your youth, after about 30 years old.
Objectively, it's true, I presume, that the retina can resolve to another 100 pixels or so. But most eyes cannot. For a long time, printers have regarded the line of 300 dpi to be where pixels/dots disappear. That's the crucial thing. At 366 dpi, only the very most acute instruments can detect the dots. In a lab.
Meanwhile, theoretically, mp3s sound like crap. The golden-eared people with expensive "hifis" will be able to detect, through their $20,000 speakers and fancy metal connectors ($20,000) that there is a difference. Meanwhile, the world prefers digital files because they're tiny and transportable, and most cannot tell the difference.
"...18 inches from the eye, much farther than standard use for a mobile handset."
Curious, I picked up both my handheld and a tape measure, repeatedly, standing, sitting, walking... Invariably, I hold mine somewhere between 15"-22" from my face. Of course this is asinine, but good for a laugh. Try holding an object 12" from your eyes and reading 9 pt type.
and by the way.. this really is waaaaay to much math to be doing to determine whether or not the screen looks good. I don't care what it says on paper.. does it look better than the one I have now? yes or no is all i need to know. I don't necessarily care how or why
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...ne-resolution/
So what does all this mean for the iPhone? First, here are the claims.
Jobs claims the iPhone held at 12 inches from your face has pixels too small to be resolved by your eye. Soneira, the display expert quoted in the magazine articles, disputes that. He uses the 0.6 arcmin resolution for the human eye (so we use the scale factor = 5730). Let’s use that and run the numbers.
Something 12 inches away means your eye can resolve dots that are bigger than
12 inches / 5730 = 0.0021 inches
So if the pixels on the iPhone are smaller than 0.0021 inches in size, then Jobs is right. Your eye won’t resolve them. If the pixels are bigger, Soneira is right, and your eye can resolve them.
The actual iPhone 4 has 326 pixels per inch (the display is 960 pixels high, and about 2.9 inches in length). You have to flip that to get the size of the pixel in inches:
1 / 326 = 0.0031 inches
Uh oh! Things look bad for Jobs. The iPhone pixels are too big! At one foot away, your eye can resolve the pixels, and Jobs must be lying!
Or is he? Remember, Soneira used the 0.6 arcmin resolution of the eye, but that’s for perfect eyesight. Most people don’t have perfect eyesight. I sure don’t. A better number for a typical person is more like 1 arcmin resolution, not 0.6. In fact, Wikipedia lists 20/20 vision as being 1 arcmin, so there you go.
If I use 1 arcminute instead, the scale factor is smaller, about 3438. So let’s convert that to inches to see how small a pixel the human eye can resolve at a distance of one foot:
12 inches / 3438 = 0.0035 inches
Aha! This means that to a more average eye, pixels smaller than this are unresolved. Since the iPhone’s pixels are 0.0031 inches on a side, it works! Jobs is actually correct.
[Note: in the articles about all this, they used units of pixels per inch, whereas I've used the size of the pixels themselves. You can flip all these numbers to convert. The iPhone4 has a resolution of 326 ppi (pixels per inch). Soleira says the eye can resolve 1 / 0.0021 = 477 ppi. However, normal vision can see at 1 / 0.0035 = 286 ppi. So the density of pixels in the iPhone 4 is safely higher than can be resolved by the normal eye, but lower than what can be resolved by someone with perfect vision.]
Another question:
Has Apple an exclusive right to implement those screens? Otherwise there will be similar (LG) Android phones soon.
Good question. The Evo 4G is a TFT display and those AMOLED displays are using a quasi-pixel count. I wonder if iSuppli is going to have an accurate cost of the iPhone 4's display.
Apple always has to name their version of whatever technology, just like in Magic Mouse.
He should have just said it is a beautiful thing to behold and we call it 'Retina' and left it at that. They never said their mouse actually performed any magic. But he had to open up a can of worms with his sudo-scientific explanation. Some people, like Steve, are nearsighted and hold it close to their eyes and others are farsighted, like me, and I hold it as far away as I can. Everybody is different. I'm sure the screen will impress nearly everyone once they get their hands on one.
Apple is well managed and makes great products, but they really do know how to market themselves better than anyone else. I've been tired of the OLED buzzword since it came out. They are great in certain areas but they fail in some others that they are a bad choice for mobiles, yet it's highly marketable. Jobs came on stage and completely trounced OLED with an entirely new marketing buzzword.
The fact that it's being debated at all by "scientistis" is a testament to their marketing prowess. The bottom line is that the iPhone 4 will have an (actual) 326 ppi IPS display that is better than anything else on the market. Even those scientists that say Jobs wasn't accurate about what the eye can see have to be impressed with the display on the next iPhone and that's all that really matters in the end.
OK, Stevie is, beyond almost all doubt, the one, the only, the original, wait for it... tekstud!
He's the only troll I can recall who uses that specific phrase.
I thought it was iGenius.
[...]
Aha! This means that to a more average eye, pixels smaller than this are unresolved. Since the iPhone?s pixels are 0.0031 inches on a side, it works! Jobs is actually correct.
[...]
This type of data has been posted all over the nets all week, but this is the first time I truly understood it. Thanks!
Apple gets nothing but hurt for creating the highest ppi for mobile devises, so what happens when Microsoft creates a bogus display technology? They get showered with awards!
ClearType was created through an extremely complex and scientific procedure. Over the course of two years, Microsoft researchers studied typography and the psychology of reading in order to create ClearType.
Showered with awards? Where? I only found *one* obscure award MS got for ClearType, back in 1999. It's no panacea, but don't think it's a bogus technology, it was noticeably clearer than full-pixel anti-aliasing. Not sure why you brought Microsoft and ClearType up, I didn't see anyone talk about those before or in the article. Besides, technology wasn't ready for affordable ultra-high dpis until now, and desktop/notebook computers still aren't there yet, Apple still hasn't rolled out full resolution independence on the Macs, nor has any other desktop OS.
At 366 dpi, only the very most acute instruments can detect the dots. In a lab.
I don't know where you get that, that sounds like you're blowing smoke. I've had ordinary consumer scanners clearly resolve thousands of lines per inch, the fibers of the paper can look like logs. The best optical microscope can read down to 0.2 μm, I think that translates down to about 128,000dpi. Some types of lab equipment can detect atoms, which is far smaller.