You really think it will make a difference on a 3.2 to a 4.3 inch screen. I doubt that very much.
We aren't nearly as sensitive to resolution with moving images as we are with still images.
You're not going to hold the phone at the ideal distance for resolution. You're going to hold it at the most comfortable distance.
Are you sure he's not actually referring to a "more satisfying aspect ratio". If that is the newest alias of who I think it is, he's complained about the iPhone and iPad not having a 16:9 aspect ratio like an HDTV and therefore stated it was "crap" for watching anything on. Though I seem to recall movies are typically filmed in 1:1.85 or 1:2.35 aspect ratio, thus making his claim even more bogus.
According to Dr. Soneira's calculations everyone can hold the iPhone 3GS 3 feet away from their eyes before they can no longer differentiate a pixel.
You can try this at home. How far away does any current iPhone or Touch have to be before you can't see separate pixels? I bet it's well less than 3 feet for almost everybody.
Are you sure he's not actually referring to a "more satisfying aspect ratio". If that is the newest alias of who I think it is, he's complained about the iPhone and iPad not having a 16:9 aspect ratio like an HDTV and therefore stated it was "crap" for watching anything on. Though I seem to recall movies are typically filmed in 1:1.85 or 1:2.35 aspect ratio, thus making his claim even more bogus.
I'm going by what he stated. I was talking about resolution, and his answer responded to that post.
I really don't want to see 16:9 resolutions in our phones. That's a horrible idea. The ONLY thing it's better for is modern video. Everything else is better off with a squarer display. That crappy 16:9 ratio is one reason the Zune has to use two screens to get the same amount of info on the screen as the Touch gets in one. Poor interface design is another.
Video isn't everything, and still photos from compact digital cameras, as well as those on phones isn't 16:9, so there's wasted space there.
Nothing is going to satisfy everyone. But I just don't find it practical. People were even brainlessly complaining that the iPad wasn't 16:9.
Hey, the AppleTV outputs 720p via component, doesn't it? Including rented HD movies.
My old MBP also doesn't have HDMI but can rent SOME HD movies (and buy any HD TV show) and display on my DVI-or-VGA-connected plasma. Not as many movies as the AppleTV though, but it's there.
So what's the deal with the iPad not being able to output to the levels of ONE of the above?
I'm going by what he stated. I was talking about resolution, and his answer responded to that post.
I really don't want to see 16:9 resolutions in our phones. That's a horrible idea. The ONLY thing it's better for is modern video. Everything else is better off with a squarer display. That crappy 16:9 ratio is one reason the Zune has to use two screens to get the same amount of info on the screen as the Touch gets in one. Poor interface design is another.
Video isn't everything, and still photos from compact digital cameras, as well as those on phones isn't 16:9, so there's wasted space there.
Nothing is going to satisfy everyone. But I just don't find it practical. People were even brainlessly complaining that the iPad wasn't 16:9.
Well, there are many times i'm reading on the iPhone. Some web pages and PDF files (etc) cram too many characters per line to read at all, even in landscape mode. So, I end up zooming to the point where I have to scroll back and forth to read each line. If the screen were the same width but came in a 16:9 ratio, I would be more likely to be able to read a full line in landscape mode without zooming/panning.
Well, there are many times i'm reading on the iPhone. Some web pages and PDF files (etc) cram too many characters per line to read at all, even in landscape mode. So, I end up zooming to the point where I have to scroll back and forth to read each line. If the screen were the same width but came in a 16:9 ratio, I would be more likely to be able to read a full line in landscape mode without zooming/panning.
That wouldn't solve many problems. Apple is providing a far higher resolution screen. THAT will solve your problem. Assuming that any small screen is good for certain kinds of reading. I'm now using my iPad for reading PDF's. And, yes, the ratio is far better than 16:9 would be for that purpose.
As for web pages, most are still based in the letter or sometimes A4 paper size. I always double tap for a column, and that wouldn't change for a 16:9 screen.
And, yes, for me the old iPhone already has a retina display! Will iPHone 4 be wasted on the likes of me?
I thought you just said that you needed more resolution in the horizontal view? Otherwise, what would be the purpose of the 16:9 display? Here, you'll get it. And if you can't see more than 480 anyway, what would be the purpose of 16:9?
Actually apps won't become unusable when scaling down because iOS is based on Mac OS X which has resolution independence so in theory at least it should remain fully useable.
As the iPhone's screen is more precise it should even be more useable.
I thought you just said that you needed more resolution in the horizontal view? Otherwise, what would be the purpose of the 16:9 display? Here, you'll get it. And if you can't see more than 480 anyway, what would be the purpose of 16:9?
Actually, for my eyes, it's not the number of pixels per character that's the limiting factor, it's the size of the character. I could actually read more easily on a bigger screen with less ppi than I could on the same size with more ppi. Capiche?
I can't believe you people are still spreading this FUD.
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.
If 65% of the population have 20/20 vision or worse how is it not a "retina display" to the vast majority of people who don't have Dr. Soneira's "best case scenario" on 20/12 eyesight.
But didn't you know trolls have green kryptonite aided vision?
Commenter from Discover Magazine article makes very astute post...
103. Hiram Says:
June 10th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
If you look at or listen to the quote, we will see that Jobs says “around” 10- 12″ and “around 300 pixels” Then others infer the definitive statements, of definitely exceeding all human perception. When I heard that statement, with two “arounds” in it, I interpret that as “being damn close to if not exceeding the limit”. However, when making a statement this vague, you can guarantee the spec nerds will go nuts, once again not getting the point that the exact specs are not what is important, but the effect on the user experience.
The funny thing is that these “expert” nerds are actually less perceptive than the casual non-tech user, when the nerds never see the forest with their nose against the tree.
Why does only one company look at the big picture?
Actually apps won't become unusable when scaling down because iOS is based on Mac OS X which has resolution independence so in theory at least it should remain fully useable.
As the iPhone's screen is more precise it should even be more useable.
No RI in OS X yet, and no RI in IOS 4 as far as we know.
By non-standard, the author doesn't mean that they aren't common, but that other mobile platforms, such as Android, don't enforce standardization of resolutions and aspect ratios.
And yet, as if by magic, Android won't suffer fragmentation and stratification?
Actually, for my eyes, it's not the number of pixels per character that's the limiting factor, it's the size of the character. I could actually read more easily on a bigger screen with less ppi than I could on the same size with more ppi. Capiche?
The difference in horizontal length between a 3.5" diag. display, and a 4.3" diag. display is, even accounting for the difference in ratio between the two, about .7", according to quick and rough calculations. The iPhone display is now 3" long. That would give you about a 23% increase. Would that make a serious enough difference? Remember that that's the biggest display now used, except for the Dell Streak, which isn't out yet, and is said to be too big to be comfortable as a phone. Most other 16:9 displays are just a bit bigger than the iPhone display diag. but only about .25" to .30" bigger horizontally. That wouldn't help at all.
Why does only one company look at the big picture?
Because you have to be extremely confident to ignore all the critics who think they know better?
Let's face it, Apple only makes it look easy. If it was as simple as just marketing or sprinkling some kool-aid around, there would be far more companies as successful as Apple.
When Steve speaks about passion in designing products that they wanted to use first, you can tell. There is no design by committee, poll or stockholder demands
Apple has a singular vision and they execute it as close to perfection as humanly possible before moving on. I find it ironic that those who criticize Apple for cut and paste don't realize that the delay Apple took in cut in paste is exactly why they are successful over those who had the checkbox on the feature list before Apple. Apple doesn't just check the box on a feature list, they check the box on the experience list. That's something exponentially harder to do - yet as a consumer of their products, infinitely more satisfying.
That focus is why I predominately use Apple products over others. Other companies just need to step up their game. HP, so far, seems to be the only one who might understand with their WebOS purchase. We'll have to see if it really ends up in a cutting edge tablet or just ends up as an improvement to the built in interface on their printers
The new phone specifications add support for MJPEG video compression, a very inefficient format primarily used by point-and-shoot cameras that take video and capture it as AVI files. Support for the codec is only useful for syncing with camera devices
I'm pretty sure Motion JPEG has better quality and is easier to work with (less cpu horsepower required) than AVCHD but at the cost of larger file sizes.
The difference in horizontal length between a 3.5" diag. display, and a 4.3" diag. display is, even accounting for the difference in ratio between the two, about .7", according to quick and rough calculations. The iPhone display is now 3" long. That would give you about a 23% increase. Would that make a serious enough difference? Remember that that's the biggest display now used, except for the Dell Streak, which isn't out yet, and is said to be too big to be comfortable as a phone. Most other 16:9 displays are just a bit bigger than the iPhone display diag. but only about .25" to .30" bigger horizontally. That wouldn't help at all.
To be specific...
. . . Device:. iPhone. . EVO 4G. . . Difference
Aspect Ratio:. 1.5(3:2). 1.78(16:9). —
. . Diagonal:. 3.5". . . 4.3". . . . 0.8"
. . . .Width:. 2.91". . .3.75". . . .0.84"
. . . Height:. 1.94". . .2.11". . . .0.17"
If that is a problem for his perhaps a larger display is the solution for him, but it's not an "aspect ratio issue" which would only increase the width of the iPhone by 0.14" if they maintained 3.5" on the diagonal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
I find it ironic that those who criticize Apple for cut and paste don't realize that the delay Apple took in cut in paste is exactly why they are successful over those who had the checkbox on the feature list before Apple.
Android still hasn't gotten it right in v2.2. I do wish they'd offer a rich System Notification service. I find WebOS' implementation to be excellent, hopefully they are using their recent hire of the WebOS guy to work on that, I just hope I don't have to wait until iOS v5.0 to get it.
Comments
You really think it will make a difference on a 3.2 to a 4.3 inch screen. I doubt that very much.
We aren't nearly as sensitive to resolution with moving images as we are with still images.
You're not going to hold the phone at the ideal distance for resolution. You're going to hold it at the most comfortable distance.
Are you sure he's not actually referring to a "more satisfying aspect ratio". If that is the newest alias of who I think it is, he's complained about the iPhone and iPad not having a 16:9 aspect ratio like an HDTV and therefore stated it was "crap" for watching anything on. Though I seem to recall movies are typically filmed in 1:1.85 or 1:2.35 aspect ratio, thus making his claim even more bogus.
According to Dr. Soneira's calculations everyone can hold the iPhone 3GS 3 feet away from their eyes before they can no longer differentiate a pixel.
You can try this at home. How far away does any current iPhone or Touch have to be before you can't see separate pixels? I bet it's well less than 3 feet for almost everybody.
26" by mine.
Are you sure he's not actually referring to a "more satisfying aspect ratio". If that is the newest alias of who I think it is, he's complained about the iPhone and iPad not having a 16:9 aspect ratio like an HDTV and therefore stated it was "crap" for watching anything on. Though I seem to recall movies are typically filmed in 1:1.85 or 1:2.35 aspect ratio, thus making his claim even more bogus.
I'm going by what he stated. I was talking about resolution, and his answer responded to that post.
I really don't want to see 16:9 resolutions in our phones. That's a horrible idea. The ONLY thing it's better for is modern video. Everything else is better off with a squarer display. That crappy 16:9 ratio is one reason the Zune has to use two screens to get the same amount of info on the screen as the Touch gets in one. Poor interface design is another.
Video isn't everything, and still photos from compact digital cameras, as well as those on phones isn't 16:9, so there's wasted space there.
Nothing is going to satisfy everyone. But I just don't find it practical. People were even brainlessly complaining that the iPad wasn't 16:9.
My old MBP also doesn't have HDMI but can rent SOME HD movies (and buy any HD TV show) and display on my DVI-or-VGA-connected plasma. Not as many movies as the AppleTV though, but it's there.
So what's the deal with the iPad not being able to output to the levels of ONE of the above?
I'm going by what he stated. I was talking about resolution, and his answer responded to that post.
I really don't want to see 16:9 resolutions in our phones. That's a horrible idea. The ONLY thing it's better for is modern video. Everything else is better off with a squarer display. That crappy 16:9 ratio is one reason the Zune has to use two screens to get the same amount of info on the screen as the Touch gets in one. Poor interface design is another.
Video isn't everything, and still photos from compact digital cameras, as well as those on phones isn't 16:9, so there's wasted space there.
Nothing is going to satisfy everyone. But I just don't find it practical. People were even brainlessly complaining that the iPad wasn't 16:9.
Well, there are many times i'm reading on the iPhone. Some web pages and PDF files (etc) cram too many characters per line to read at all, even in landscape mode. So, I end up zooming to the point where I have to scroll back and forth to read each line. If the screen were the same width but came in a 16:9 ratio, I would be more likely to be able to read a full line in landscape mode without zooming/panning.
Well, there are many times i'm reading on the iPhone. Some web pages and PDF files (etc) cram too many characters per line to read at all, even in landscape mode. So, I end up zooming to the point where I have to scroll back and forth to read each line. If the screen were the same width but came in a 16:9 ratio, I would be more likely to be able to read a full line in landscape mode without zooming/panning.
That wouldn't solve many problems. Apple is providing a far higher resolution screen. THAT will solve your problem. Assuming that any small screen is good for certain kinds of reading. I'm now using my iPad for reading PDF's. And, yes, the ratio is far better than 16:9 would be for that purpose.
As for web pages, most are still based in the letter or sometimes A4 paper size. I always double tap for a column, and that wouldn't change for a 16:9 screen.
And, yes, for me the old iPhone already has a retina display! Will iPHone 4 be wasted on the likes of me?
I thought you just said that you needed more resolution in the horizontal view? Otherwise, what would be the purpose of the 16:9 display? Here, you'll get it. And if you can't see more than 480 anyway, what would be the purpose of 16:9?
As the iPhone's screen is more precise it should even be more useable.
I thought you just said that you needed more resolution in the horizontal view? Otherwise, what would be the purpose of the 16:9 display? Here, you'll get it. And if you can't see more than 480 anyway, what would be the purpose of 16:9?
Actually, for my eyes, it's not the number of pixels per character that's the limiting factor, it's the size of the character. I could actually read more easily on a bigger screen with less ppi than I could on the same size with more ppi. Capiche?
I think that there will be few iPhone 4 only apps. It would be a commercial suicide.
Because an expected 10 million iPhone 4s sold by the end of this year will be a small market?
But yes, doubtful there will be many iPhone 4 only apps.
I can't believe you people are still spreading this FUD.
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.
If 65% of the population have 20/20 vision or worse how is it not a "retina display" to the vast majority of people who don't have Dr. Soneira's "best case scenario" on 20/12 eyesight.
But didn't you know trolls have green kryptonite aided vision?
Actually apps won't become unusable when scaling down because iOS is based on Mac OS X which has resolution independence so in theory at least it should remain fully useable.
As the iPhone's screen is more precise it should even be more useable.
No RI in OS X yet, and no RI in IOS 4 as far as we know.
Actually, that should read:
By non-standard, the author doesn't mean that they aren't common, but that other mobile platforms, such as Android, don't enforce standardization of resolutions and aspect ratios.
And yet, as if by magic, Android won't suffer fragmentation and stratification?
yeah, right....
Actually, for my eyes, it's not the number of pixels per character that's the limiting factor, it's the size of the character. I could actually read more easily on a bigger screen with less ppi than I could on the same size with more ppi. Capiche?
The difference in horizontal length between a 3.5" diag. display, and a 4.3" diag. display is, even accounting for the difference in ratio between the two, about .7", according to quick and rough calculations. The iPhone display is now 3" long. That would give you about a 23% increase. Would that make a serious enough difference? Remember that that's the biggest display now used, except for the Dell Streak, which isn't out yet, and is said to be too big to be comfortable as a phone. Most other 16:9 displays are just a bit bigger than the iPhone display diag. but only about .25" to .30" bigger horizontally. That wouldn't help at all.
Why does only one company look at the big picture?
Because you have to be extremely confident to ignore all the critics who think they know better?
Let's face it, Apple only makes it look easy. If it was as simple as just marketing or sprinkling some kool-aid around, there would be far more companies as successful as Apple.
When Steve speaks about passion in designing products that they wanted to use first, you can tell. There is no design by committee, poll or stockholder demands
Apple has a singular vision and they execute it as close to perfection as humanly possible before moving on. I find it ironic that those who criticize Apple for cut and paste don't realize that the delay Apple took in cut in paste is exactly why they are successful over those who had the checkbox on the feature list before Apple. Apple doesn't just check the box on a feature list, they check the box on the experience list. That's something exponentially harder to do - yet as a consumer of their products, infinitely more satisfying.
That focus is why I predominately use Apple products over others. Other companies just need to step up their game. HP, so far, seems to be the only one who might understand with their WebOS purchase. We'll have to see if it really ends up in a cutting edge tablet or just ends up as an improvement to the built in interface on their printers
The new phone specifications add support for MJPEG video compression, a very inefficient format primarily used by point-and-shoot cameras that take video and capture it as AVI files. Support for the codec is only useful for syncing with camera devices
I'm pretty sure Motion JPEG has better quality and is easier to work with (less cpu horsepower required) than AVCHD but at the cost of larger file sizes.
The difference in horizontal length between a 3.5" diag. display, and a 4.3" diag. display is, even accounting for the difference in ratio between the two, about .7", according to quick and rough calculations. The iPhone display is now 3" long. That would give you about a 23% increase. Would that make a serious enough difference? Remember that that's the biggest display now used, except for the Dell Streak, which isn't out yet, and is said to be too big to be comfortable as a phone. Most other 16:9 displays are just a bit bigger than the iPhone display diag. but only about .25" to .30" bigger horizontally. That wouldn't help at all.
To be specific...If that is a problem for his perhaps a larger display is the solution for him, but it's not an "aspect ratio issue" which would only increase the width of the iPhone by 0.14" if they maintained 3.5" on the diagonal.
I find it ironic that those who criticize Apple for cut and paste don't realize that the delay Apple took in cut in paste is exactly why they are successful over those who had the checkbox on the feature list before Apple.
Android still hasn't gotten it right in v2.2. I do wish they'd offer a rich System Notification service. I find WebOS' implementation to be excellent, hopefully they are using their recent hire of the WebOS guy to work on that, I just hope I don't have to wait until iOS v5.0 to get it.