The facts on eyesight is that just a small percent have "perfect" vision.
But there is a problem with that "fact" that the good Doctor didn't mention, or isn't aware of. And that's that it's measured at 20 feet, which for our 28mm eye lens is considered to be at infinity. At 12"s the situation changes, in that most people with that prefect vision will have less than perfect vision at that close distance.
So it's just a small percentage of a small percentage.
In addition, that vision test is done with a high contrast target which gives the highest acuity. When contrast is lowered, acuity drops off rapidly. As most elements on displays are lower in contrast, acuity will be lower for them. The truth is that acuity varies for the same person.
You also have to take subpixels into account. These LCD displays actually have twice the intensity resolution than the stated color pixel dpi, with several single-color subpixels used to make up one multi-color pixel. These extra subpixels allow aliasing to be reduced and make intensity changes more gradual.
This is the single biggest missed opportunity for the iPhone.
Apple could have, potentially, sold a bluetooth remote and a HDMI cable and made every iPhone4 a defacto AppleTV.
People would have plugged their iPhone in for a quick and easy rental, or to add youtube to their TV etc. What a pity!
This would negate the fact that apple probably will be releasing a new Apple TV based on iPhone hardware and iOS software. Why offer this functionality on an iPhone when they can get us to buy another apple product.
I'll never leave iPhone, but your figures do indicate that we can fit 28% more characters (of the same size) on a screen the size of EVO, so that means it should be 28% easier to read (all else equal, yada yada). Their target market must not read. (I'm mostly talkin websites and PDFs. Nothing too offensive like James Joyce.)
I'll never leave iPhone, but your figures do indicate that we can fit 28% more characters (of the same size) on a screen the size of EVO, so that means it should be 28% easier to read (all else equal, yada yada). Their target market must not read. (I'm mostly talkin websites and PDFs. Nothing too offensive like James Joyce.)
I think the problem isn't with the HW, but with the SW, or more specifically the webcode most sites use. In the iPhone under General » Accessibility you can change the font size of pretty much everything on the iPhone except websites. There is also a Zoom feature in Accessibility, but that doesn't resolve the underlying issue, either.
I find it ironic that the iPhone was the first phone to really use a full, modern browser and yet it quickly spawned a new mobile web platform designed to mimic the look and feel of iPhone OS. I think the proper resolution is for more of the web to be designed with handheld browsing in mind. AppleInsider's main site has this option but their vBulletin powered forum is still stuck in the dark ages of the internet. Note that if you save the AppleInsider site to your iPhone Home Screen it loads up (at least in iOS 4) without the top and bottom Safari bars, which mimic the look and feel or an iOS app even more.
PS: In case anyone was wondering, I use {COLOR=#e1e1e2}[/COLOR} and [FONT="Courier New"}[/FONT} to make the chart without the forum pulling the text together as it doesn't like extraneous spaces to be used. I hope they are more readable that way.
I?m assuming that when iOS4 ships for iPad, doubled iPhone apps (even old ones) will gain sharper, non-jagged text, using the same res-independence that iOS apparently offers for older apps on iPhone 4.
I think the content creators should adapt to these mobile times we live in and author more fluid layouts.
Web browsing kind of sucks on an iPhone. Content creators create content to the specifications of their clients. When those clients perceive the need to spend money on a special iPhone adapted web site, then it will happen. Until then it will continue to suck. There is literally no way to satisfy the expectations of both the desktop and iPhone audience with a single page layout.
Hey, Captain Dumbfck, the Magic Mouse isn't really magical, either. Turns out, it's just technology. Begin complaining..... now!
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Clarke
Personally I don't like Apple mouses. I like to rest my hand on the mouse without it being considered touch input and I like the tactile feedback that comes from having real mechanical switches. Apple made a decent mouse back in the 90's. Their original white Bluetooth mouse had the best tracking and reliability in its day, but it had only a single button and in 2003 that was simply unacceptable.
He's not actually correct on this one. I think it's a good name, and a marketting concept that will resonate with people etc, but on a purely pedantic and anal assessment he is wrong. All this talk of 20/20 vision, your average persons eyesight, perfect eyesight etc isn't a part of the equation. What Jobs was was that around 300 (Let's give him +- 10% and go for 270 - 330 ppi was "the limit" of the human retina. The limit, not the average.
Now, if you ask me the limit of human speed so far is Usain Bolt. However your average man is probably 50% slower than him over 100 meters.
So it's a great marketing term, that whilst not being 100% accurate is probably good enough to stand up to it's claims. I think this is where Apple shine. They've taken a vastly complex subject (as proven by the pseudo-scientific back and forth arguments and discussions) and distilled it into a non technical message - 4 times more detail than your existing phone, so good your eyes can't pick fault. Compare that to some of the android manufacturers who still blind the public with science and specs. OK, Apple use terms like IPS etc during their keynotes (audience of geeks) but when it get's to the high street, that's all gone and they sell on the features, not the specs. We all know what OLED is, jonny highstreet might not, and might not care to. Meanwhile everyone understands Apple's message.
That's come across a bit fanboy, but I think it's true. There is a lot of fair discussion to be made on the relative merits of LCD/OLED, contrast ratios, colour reproduction and all that, but 95% of consumers don't care about the how, just about the what. And Apple tends to distill and clarify the message in ways everyone else don't understand is even important yet.
Tech kit eh? Reviewed by geeks, but bought by your dad.
The screen resolution is good enough for a person with 20/17 vision at 12" to see it as a perfect screen. There aren't that many people with vision better than that. The closer you get to 20/12, the fewer people are in the group. Not very many left at 20/12. Actually, none. 20/13 is closer to the actual limit.
And has been pointed out, most people will be holding the phone further away.
I 100% agree, but I think that games and text will be stunning on such a high res definition, even on a small screen. About games, the only way to "hide pixels" is to use an anti alias filter. This filter is not easy to be handled by a graphic chip but an antialiased polygon looks ten times better than a non antialiased one. The only alternative way to "hide pixels" is to increase the resolution, and this is what the so called "retina" display does.
For AVERAGE people, it is not. For average people, the iPhone 4 does have pixels smaller than the eye can resolve.
See the difference?
Yes, for average people, the pixels are smaller than can be seen at 12" (for the 4, but not the 3GS. Even for those better than average, at 20/17, that's so.
I think that for most of us, this argument is getting tiring.
You also have to take subpixels into account. These LCD displays actually have twice the intensity resolution than the stated color pixel dpi, with several single-color subpixels used to make up one multi-color pixel. These extra subpixels allow aliasing to be reduced and make intensity changes more gradual.
Yes. I've said this before, and I got an argument from someone here who refused to explain why he thought I was wrong. sub-pixels are much smaller than the entire three color pixel. Sub-pixel rendering is used to make text sharper, video sharper, and even still images sharper. It's a well understood technology.
If we were just looking are greyscale, 960 x 640 would be the finest detail rendered by the GPU and display, but that isn't usually so in color.
I'll never leave iPhone, but your figures do indicate that we can fit 28% more characters (of the same size) on a screen the size of EVO, so that means it should be 28% easier to read (all else equal, yada yada). Their target market must not read. (I'm mostly talkin websites and PDFs. Nothing too offensive like James Joyce.)
I don't quite understand that. Fitting more characters on a screen doesn't make it more readable. Most reading matter reformats itself for the screen width. I've been reading books on my phones for a fair number of years, and that's always been the case, starting with my Samsung i300 Palmphone. Sure, you get less on the screen, but its just as readable.
With websites, double tap a column, and it will fill the screen.
I was under the impression resolution independence has been in Mac OS X since Leopard.
It's there and has been there since before Leopard. It was also a touted feature of Leopard when demoed at WWDC in 2004(?).
What it isn't is completed or on by default. You can test it out for yourself with a simple Terminal command and restarted any app, which included Dock, Dashboard and Finder.
Code:
defaults write -g AppleDisplayScaleFactor 1
Where 1 is the default and any variation of that number is the percentage the items will change. For instance, putting in 1.17 will increase everything by 17% or putting in .8 will decrease everything to 80% of the default.
Personally, I don't think they can bring out 10.7 until they have this squared away. Since they have offered no intermediate solution like MS has with their Windows Presentation Foundation they'll need to have this down if they ever want to offer much higher pixel density displays. Right now, I can't even go to the HD in the 15" or 17" because the elements are too small for me.
Comments
I don't think his report talked about anything that everybody can see. I think he was talking about the effects upon normal vision.
Now you've moved your argument to 20/12 being "normal" vision. Awesome¡
Ahh! This time you beat me.
The facts on eyesight is that just a small percent have "perfect" vision.
But there is a problem with that "fact" that the good Doctor didn't mention, or isn't aware of. And that's that it's measured at 20 feet, which for our 28mm eye lens is considered to be at infinity. At 12"s the situation changes, in that most people with that prefect vision will have less than perfect vision at that close distance.
So it's just a small percentage of a small percentage.
In addition, that vision test is done with a high contrast target which gives the highest acuity. When contrast is lowered, acuity drops off rapidly. As most elements on displays are lower in contrast, acuity will be lower for them. The truth is that acuity varies for the same person.
You also have to take subpixels into account. These LCD displays actually have twice the intensity resolution than the stated color pixel dpi, with several single-color subpixels used to make up one multi-color pixel. These extra subpixels allow aliasing to be reduced and make intensity changes more gradual.
This is the single biggest missed opportunity for the iPhone.
Apple could have, potentially, sold a bluetooth remote and a HDMI cable and made every iPhone4 a defacto AppleTV.
People would have plugged their iPhone in for a quick and easy rental, or to add youtube to their TV etc. What a pity!
This would negate the fact that apple probably will be releasing a new Apple TV based on iPhone hardware and iOS software. Why offer this functionality on an iPhone when they can get us to buy another apple product.
iPhone 4 resolution apps are a nice option to have for the iPad, but iPad apps are what's needed.
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"
I'll never leave iPhone, but your figures do indicate that we can fit 28% more characters (of the same size) on a screen the size of EVO, so that means it should be 28% easier to read (all else equal, yada yada). Their target market must not read. (I'm mostly talkin websites and PDFs. Nothing too offensive like James Joyce.)
I'll never leave iPhone, but your figures do indicate that we can fit 28% more characters (of the same size) on a screen the size of EVO, so that means it should be 28% easier to read (all else equal, yada yada). Their target market must not read. (I'm mostly talkin websites and PDFs. Nothing too offensive like James Joyce.)
I think the problem isn't with the HW, but with the SW, or more specifically the webcode most sites use. In the iPhone under General » Accessibility you can change the font size of pretty much everything on the iPhone except websites. There is also a Zoom feature in Accessibility, but that doesn't resolve the underlying issue, either.
I find it ironic that the iPhone was the first phone to really use a full, modern browser and yet it quickly spawned a new mobile web platform designed to mimic the look and feel of iPhone OS. I think the proper resolution is for more of the web to be designed with handheld browsing in mind. AppleInsider's main site has this option but their vBulletin powered forum is still stuck in the dark ages of the internet. Note that if you save the AppleInsider site to your iPhone Home Screen it loads up (at least in iOS 4) without the top and bottom Safari bars, which mimic the look and feel or an iOS app even more.
PS: In case anyone was wondering, I use {COLOR=#e1e1e2}[/COLOR} and [FONT="Courier New"}[/FONT} to make the chart without the forum pulling the text together as it doesn't like extraneous spaces to be used. I hope they are more readable that way.
Also underreported is the fact that iPhone 4 will support the iPad's VGA video output cable for delivering 1024x768 resolution,
How old is the VGA port? I have one on my laptop, but I can't imagine ever using it.
Does it predate the 3.5" floppy?
And won't Apple's D-sub 15 connector output SXGA? Why did Apple use 1024x768?
I think the content creators should adapt to these mobile times we live in and author more fluid layouts.
Web browsing kind of sucks on an iPhone. Content creators create content to the specifications of their clients. When those clients perceive the need to spend money on a special iPhone adapted web site, then it will happen. Until then it will continue to suck. There is literally no way to satisfy the expectations of both the desktop and iPhone audience with a single page layout.
Hey, Captain Dumbfck, the Magic Mouse isn't really magical, either. Turns out, it's just technology. Begin complaining..... now!
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Clarke
Personally I don't like Apple mouses. I like to rest my hand on the mouse without it being considered touch input and I like the tactile feedback that comes from having real mechanical switches. Apple made a decent mouse back in the 90's. Their original white Bluetooth mouse had the best tracking and reliability in its day, but it had only a single button and in 2003 that was simply unacceptable.
He's not actually correct on this one. I think it's a good name, and a marketting concept that will resonate with people etc, but on a purely pedantic and anal assessment he is wrong. All this talk of 20/20 vision, your average persons eyesight, perfect eyesight etc isn't a part of the equation. What Jobs was was that around 300 (Let's give him +- 10% and go for 270 - 330 ppi was "the limit" of the human retina. The limit, not the average.
Now, if you ask me the limit of human speed so far is Usain Bolt. However your average man is probably 50% slower than him over 100 meters.
So it's a great marketing term, that whilst not being 100% accurate is probably good enough to stand up to it's claims. I think this is where Apple shine. They've taken a vastly complex subject (as proven by the pseudo-scientific back and forth arguments and discussions) and distilled it into a non technical message - 4 times more detail than your existing phone, so good your eyes can't pick fault. Compare that to some of the android manufacturers who still blind the public with science and specs. OK, Apple use terms like IPS etc during their keynotes (audience of geeks) but when it get's to the high street, that's all gone and they sell on the features, not the specs. We all know what OLED is, jonny highstreet might not, and might not care to. Meanwhile everyone understands Apple's message.
That's come across a bit fanboy, but I think it's true. There is a lot of fair discussion to be made on the relative merits of LCD/OLED, contrast ratios, colour reproduction and all that, but 95% of consumers don't care about the how, just about the what. And Apple tends to distill and clarify the message in ways everyone else don't understand is even important yet.
Tech kit eh? Reviewed by geeks, but bought by your dad.
The screen resolution is good enough for a person with 20/17 vision at 12" to see it as a perfect screen. There aren't that many people with vision better than that. The closer you get to 20/12, the fewer people are in the group. Not very many left at 20/12. Actually, none. 20/13 is closer to the actual limit.
And has been pointed out, most people will be holding the phone further away.
I 100% agree, but I think that games and text will be stunning on such a high res definition, even on a small screen. About games, the only way to "hide pixels" is to use an anti alias filter. This filter is not easy to be handled by a graphic chip but an antialiased polygon looks ten times better than a non antialiased one. The only alternative way to "hide pixels" is to increase the resolution, and this is what the so called "retina" display does.
That's true too.
I think it will make a huge difference. We'll see when the new iPhone debuts.
Given everything Apple is all about, I think the iPhone deserves to have the best screen in the industry.
Pople can argue what that means.
Somebody check me out. I did the arithmetic, and I come up with 16:10.667
The iPhone is 3:2, or 6:4, or 12:8. That's the easy way to understand it.
But, you are also right, it would come out to 16:10.667
For AVERAGE people, it is not. For average people, the iPhone 4 does have pixels smaller than the eye can resolve.
See the difference?
Yes, for average people, the pixels are smaller than can be seen at 12" (for the 4, but not the 3GS. Even for those better than average, at 20/17, that's so.
I think that for most of us, this argument is getting tiring.
You also have to take subpixels into account. These LCD displays actually have twice the intensity resolution than the stated color pixel dpi, with several single-color subpixels used to make up one multi-color pixel. These extra subpixels allow aliasing to be reduced and make intensity changes more gradual.
Yes. I've said this before, and I got an argument from someone here who refused to explain why he thought I was wrong. sub-pixels are much smaller than the entire three color pixel. Sub-pixel rendering is used to make text sharper, video sharper, and even still images sharper. It's a well understood technology.
If we were just looking are greyscale, 960 x 640 would be the finest detail rendered by the GPU and display, but that isn't usually so in color.
. . . 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"
I'll never leave iPhone, but your figures do indicate that we can fit 28% more characters (of the same size) on a screen the size of EVO, so that means it should be 28% easier to read (all else equal, yada yada). Their target market must not read. (I'm mostly talkin websites and PDFs. Nothing too offensive like James Joyce.)
I don't quite understand that. Fitting more characters on a screen doesn't make it more readable. Most reading matter reformats itself for the screen width. I've been reading books on my phones for a fair number of years, and that's always been the case, starting with my Samsung i300 Palmphone. Sure, you get less on the screen, but its just as readable.
With websites, double tap a column, and it will fill the screen.
No RI in OS X yet, and no RI in IOS 4 as far as we know.
I was under the impression resolution independence has been in Mac OS X since Leopard.
I was under the impression resolution independence has been in Mac OS X since Leopard.
It's there and has been there since before Leopard. It was also a touted feature of Leopard when demoed at WWDC in 2004(?).
What it isn't is completed or on by default. You can test it out for yourself with a simple Terminal command and restarted any app, which included Dock, Dashboard and Finder.
defaults write -g AppleDisplayScaleFactor 1
Where 1 is the default and any variation of that number is the percentage the items will change. For instance, putting in 1.17 will increase everything by 17% or putting in .8 will decrease everything to 80% of the default.
Personally, I don't think they can bring out 10.7 until they have this squared away. Since they have offered no intermediate solution like MS has with their Windows Presentation Foundation they'll need to have this down if they ever want to offer much higher pixel density displays. Right now, I can't even go to the HD in the 15" or 17" because the elements are too small for me.