×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

iPhone 4's "Retina Display" Claims Challenged

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the obviously-you-need-an-i-retina dept.

Cellphones 476

adeelarshad82 writes "Of the many things that buyers might need to know about the new iPhone, Raymond Soneira — president of DisplayMate Technolgies — added one more to the list. Soneira challenged Apple's claims that Apple's new iPhone contains a so-called 'retina display.' According to Soneira, the resolution of the retina is in angular measure, 50 cycles per degree, where a cycle is a line pair, which is two pixels, so the angular resolution of the eye is 0.6 arc minutes per pixel. So, if you hold an iPhone at the typical 12 inches from your eyes, that works out to 477 pixels per inch. At 8 inches it's 716 ppi. You have to hold iPhone 4 out about 18 inches before it falls to 318 ppi. So the iPhone has significantly lower resolution than the retina."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

476 comments

Real Ratina Display (4, Insightful)

alain94040 (785132) | more than 3 years ago | (#32516992)

According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] :

For a human eye with excellent acuity, the maximum theoretical resolution is 50 CPD (Cycles Per Degree). A rat can resolve only about 1 to 2 CPD.

I guess "rat-ina display" didn't sound as good to Apple marketing :-)

But really, so it may be 18 inches for "true" retina display versus 12 inches. Ok... Big deal.

--
Join Guy Kawasaki and 250+ founders at the Founder Conference'2010 [thefounderconference.com]

Re:Real Ratina Display (5, Funny)

xTantrum (919048) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517078)

Who cares about a ritnawhatchumacallit. If i get an Iphone I'll get laid! :D

Re:Real Ratina Display (5, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517190)

Who cares about a ritnawhatchumacallit. If i get an Iphone I'll get laid! :D

I'm not sure how discriminating your taste is, or what your preference is, and I assume you're male...

You are aware of what kind of person would be laying you because of your iPhone, right?

I mean, they probably wouldn't be nerdy *AT ALL*. What good is that?

Re:Real Ratina Display (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32517252)

I think it is more likely that you would get iLaid.

Re:Real Ratina Display (2)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517472)

If you get sent to a maximum security prison, you'll probably get laid too... be careful what you pray for, or at least be a little more specific.

Re:Real Ratina Display (1, Insightful)

dnahelicase (1594971) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517100)

According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] :

For a human eye with excellent acuity, the maximum theoretical resolution is 50 CPD (Cycles Per Degree). A rat can resolve only about 1 to 2 CPD.

I guess "rat-ina display" didn't sound as good to Apple marketing :-)

But really, so it may be 18 inches for "true" retina display versus 12 inches. Ok... Big deal.

It's only a big deal if you think Apple should be honest in it's marketing

Re:Real Ratina Display (2, Interesting)

war4peace (1628283) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517122)

So Apple basically measured their 300 ppi by looking at a monitor from 4 feet away, then took the hard number, applied it on an iPhone and there you have, the "retina display". Don't take me wrong, I couldn't care less, iWhatever products are not interesting to me for many reasons. I just am curious what makes Marketing tick :)

Re:Real Ratina Display (2, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517272)

>>>so it may be 18 inches for "true" retina display versus 12 inches. Ok... Big deal.

The big deal is that it's false advertising. Steve said it produces an image greater than the human eye can see, when held at 10-12 inches length but that's not true. The eye can resolve approximately 500 pixels per inch at that distance, and the iPhone is only 320 ppi, so Steve's claim is not true.

If another company like GM or BP had made a false claim, you'd be all over them and demanding the government sue them, but because it's your corporate "friend" Apple, you ignore the sin of false advertising..... .....and speaking of false advertising, the new TV screen that advertises 4 primary colors (RB and yellow) is ridiculous. MPEG-encoded video only assigns values to the Red, Green, Blue, and Luminance (black-and-white). The yellow does not exist. The yellow phosphors will never light up.

Re:Real Ratina Display (4, Funny)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517352)

Umm.. who holds their iPhone 10 inches from their face? Maybe blind people.. but I usually have mine out at armish length.. 18-24 inches.

Re:Real Ratina Display (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517478)

>>>who holds their iPhone 10 inches from their face? Maybe blind people.

(holds up bottle glasses) - I'm half blind you insensitive clod.

j/k. I typically hold phone 6-8 inches from my face, so I can read the tiny text. I don't see what's so unusual about that. BTW I'm amish you insensitive... nah never mind.

Re:Real Ratina Display (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32517584)

18-24 inches when you're reading something?? I think you're fooling yourself.
I happen to have a tape measure sitting here, so I measured my reading ( of this site ) on my iPhone... 13 inches.

Of ocurse that's just a study of one but.. come on... 24 inches?

Re:Real Ratina Display (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517396)

You do realize that that the MPEG encoding simply defines a point in the color space, which can then be displayed using a variety of pixel colors? Yellow pixels would presumably light up to help make yellows brigter. I'm not sure how this makes a display better, or why anyone thought it was a good idea, but there's technically nothing wrong with it. I'm sure there are DVDs carefully crafted to make such 4-color displays look better than standard displays in a showroom (with brightness and contrast cranked to the moon). Meh, I'll keep my ED plasma until OLED is here.

Re:Real Ratina Display (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517564)

>>>Yellow pixels would presumably light up to help make yellows brigter.

That would explain why Obama's been looking more yellow on my new RGBY television..... but it doesn't represent reality. The source video is calibrated to RGB screens, and showing yellow with the R and G pixels. The addition of an extra yellow phosphor merely distorts the image.

Re:Real Ratina Display (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32517504)

MPEG works in HSV, not RGB.

Reality Distortion (4, Funny)

vivin (671928) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517282)

So, if you hold an iPhone at the typical 12 inches from your eyes that works out to 477 pixels per inch and at 8 inches it's 716 ppi. You have to hold iPhone 4 out about 18 inches before it falls to 318 ppi. So the iPhone has significantly lower resolution than the retina

No, no, no! Mr. Soneira has it all wrong! The math works out if you are inside a reality-distortion field, since all physical laws either change or do not apply inside said field!

Re:Reality Distortion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32517398)

That's not the dpi of your screen, but instead the minimum resolution to not be able to distinguish pixels. I.e. if you hold it 8 inches away, a 716 ppi screen will look just as good as a 318ppi screen at 18 inches. If you go above those, you won't be able to tell the difference, if you go below 716 at 8 or 318 at 18, you'll begin to see pixels (theoretically).

Re:Real Ratina Display (1)

pookemon (909195) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517484)

Yep - I wonder how many iPhone users feel ripped off because they'r holding their iPhone 8 inches from their face and it's not looking like a "Retina" display. 18 inches doesn't seem too bad to me - but then, I ate my carrots.

Nailed 'em (4, Funny)

snowwrestler (896305) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517040)

This sober, fact-based scientific argument will surely force Apple to adjust their bombastic, exaggerated marketing tactics.

Re:Nailed 'em (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32517226)

Don't know if the Doc is right. Before the iPhone claims that thing, I read that a normal human eye could do around 300 ppi at 12 inch. Maybe the Doc just wanted some attention... Here some facts: http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/PenetrantTest/Introduction/visualacuity.htm

Re:Nailed 'em (0, Offtopic)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517248)

You mean a G4 processor is not a "supercomputer on a chip"?
The reality distortion field is collapsing around me!

Re:Nailed 'em (1)

milkmage (795746) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517312)

yes because this makes sense to Joe Public consumer -
50 cycles per degree, whereas a cycle is a line pair which is two pixels, so the angular resolution of the eye is 0.6 arc minutes per pixel.

hahaha http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_display [wikipedia.org]

interestingly, I did a guick google search for retina display -iphone4 and -retinal (that's some kind of medical procedure). I wasn't able to find anything in the first 10 pages of results about a retina display w/o apple being mentioned. Where is the spec this guy is referring to.. there's no mention of it on his site http://www.google.com/search?q=Retina+Display+site%3Adisplaymate.com&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a [google.com]

Re:Nailed 'em (0, Offtopic)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517314)

James Randi, Stephen Hawking and Oprah personally discovered pixies, gnomes and elves, proving that yes, Magic is real.

I guess the iPad's marketing is going to remain the same.

I see what he's saying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32517086)

It's very clear now.

bad vision (0, Flamebait)

goodmorningsunshine (1230354) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517090)

If you're holding you're phone, or any display for that matter, 12 inches or closer to your face, you're going to notice a lot more than pixilation - you'll notice your vision fading fast.

It's recommended that you look at your display or phone from around an arms length away or risk damaging your vision in the long term.

Re:bad vision (1)

NNKK (218503) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517114)

It's recommended that you look at your display or phone from around an arms length away or risk damaging your vision in the long term.

[[citation needed]]

Re:bad vision (1)

Kenoli (934612) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517140)

Recommended by whom? How does the more typical distance of half an arms length pose a greater risk of vision damage?

Re:bad vision (2, Informative)

lgw (121541) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517444)

Recommended by my eye doctor for one: he was adamant that keeping my point of focus at least 20 inches away, and looking into the distance at least once every 20 minutes, is important for keeping the muscles that focus my eyes healthy.

Re:bad vision (0, Flamebait)

joe_bruin (266648) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517200)

Seriously, who holds their phone 12 inches (30 cm) away from their face? I just measured my typical use: about 24 inches if I'm sitting and 36 if I'm standing. I guess by that standard, I should be pretty happy with this display.

Re:bad vision (4, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517236)

It's recommended that you look at your display or phone from around an arms length away or risk damaging your vision in the long term.

Well, *I* recommend that you place the display right up against your eyeball and then carefully pull your bottom eyelid under the lip of the display to keep it in place.

So, technically, you can say it's recommended that you do so.

Seriously, do you have any citation for that recommendation? My understanding was that as long as you take frequent breaks to change your focal length to long distances, the risk of long-term vision* damage was low.

*I do recall reading something about problems with circadian rhythms due to electronic displays, however. But not permanent, IIRC... circadian rhythms can be reset in a few weeks.

Slight Misfire above.... (4, Interesting)

craznar (710808) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517096)

It isn't meant to have the same resolution as the retina, it is meant to have sufficient resolution at reading distance, just that pixels are not detectable by the retina. Also remember, the colour resolution of the eye is far poorer than the b&w resolution of the eye, and the aim here is about colour. So I think the original statement by Steve is squishy enough to hold up to this scrutiny.

Re:Slight Misfire above.... (1, Flamebait)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517208)

Exactly my thoughts.

The idea that fewer pixels is better seems bass-akwards.

The statement:
[QUOTE]
"You have to hold iPhone 4 out about 18 inches before it falls to 318 ppi. So the iPhone has significantly lower resolution than the retina."
{/QUOTE]

Had me thinking I was missing some big ticket item in the story.

Higher is better. If you can't discern a pixel thats great. That they have twice the resolution at which you start to see pixels is just gravy.

Another misfire above (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32517268)

According to Soneira the the resolution
I guess calling them "editors" does not imbue them with the ability to run a grammar check.

Re:Slight Misfire above.... (1)

Evardsson (959228) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517298)

I happen to be far-sighted. I wear glasses when reading or working on the computer, but not usually when I am using my phone. I can guarantee you that at 8 inches I cannot make out the pixels on my 3GS, much less so for a display with even smaller pixels. Hell, at 8 inches I can't make out the text.

So I guess for me the claim holds up.

Re:Slight Misfire above.... (0)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517318)

>>>So I think the original statement by Steve is squishy enough to hold up to this scrutiny.

I thought we were talking about the iPhone, not Steve's pancreas?

Too soon?

;-)

I agree, *however* (0, Troll)

Mad Quacker (3327) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517102)

The only thing to say is "Not for Apple users". Notice how the mouse sensitivity is set at 80-year-old-grandmother level on Mac's? Apple's customers are not that distinguishing. They aim for lowest common denominator. They've made a successful business out of, and that's all there is to say about it.

Re:I agree, *however* (3, Funny)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517148)

Notice how the mouse sensitivity is set at 80-year-old-grandmother level on Mac's?

You know, there is a preference panel for that...

Re:I agree, *however* (1, Insightful)

Mad Quacker (3327) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517276)

You know, there is a preference panel for that...

..and even at the highest setting it's not only sensitive enough, but since the release Leopard, the acceleration curve has turned into an acceleration step, which makes it nearly unusable. The only way I get by on an mac is with a 2500+ DPI mouse.

Re:I agree, *however* (2, Informative)

Wovel (964431) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517390)

No offense but you have issues. Either your integrity or your dexterity are in serious doubt.

Re:I agree, *however* (2, Informative)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517454)

Either that or he insists on using a third-party mouse with inadequate driver support for Mac OS X, so what he thinks is helping him is really causing his problem.

Re:I agree, *however* (3, Interesting)

Mad Quacker (3327) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517594)

Either that or he insists on using a third-party mouse with inadequate driver support for Mac OS X, so what he thinks is helping him is really causing his problem.

Actually my solution is to not use any third party fixes, to use the default (or lower) mouse sensitivity setting, and then use a logitech mouse which will by hardware switch have a huge input DPI. This minimized the acceleration "step" behavior while still allowing me to cross two monitors with a very small and precise mouse movement. This is opposed to the normal mac mouse and user which consists of - elbow move the mouse across the desk, pick it up and move it back, repeat several times.

Re:I agree, *however* (4, Informative)

Mad Quacker (3327) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517540)

No offense but you have issues. Either your integrity or your dexterity are in serious doubt.

I'm simply a more distinguishing user. Try the google search below. Note: I develop OSX kernel extensions and I'm writing this from the WWDC right now - Apple broke the API's all of the "fix" programs you will find below use to try and fix the acceleration curve.

http://www.google.com/#q=mac+mouse+acceleration+fix [google.com]

Re:I agree, *however* (1)

Alejandros (1626215) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517630)

It is an issue for some users, myself included. The problem gets worse as you start to work with larger or multiple screens. It wouldn't be so bad if there was a setting you could adjust, but as it stands you have to rely on third party software. Would you like to know more? [tidbits.com]

Re:I agree, *however* (1)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517526)

Notice how the mouse sensitivity is set at 80-year-old-grandmother level on Mac's?

You know, there is a preference panel for that...

More importantly, is there an app for that?

Re:I agree, *however* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32517172)

So BSD Unix would be the lowest common denominator?

This looks like a typical straw man argument. (4, Insightful)

Chalex (71702) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517116)

Here's Apple's page about the new display: http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/retina-display.html

They say "the Retina display’s pixel density is so high, your eye is unable to distinguish individual pixels." I suppose we can assume that they imply "at the typical distance at which you hold your iPhone" because otherwise the claim would be nonsense. Because surely you can hold it close enough to distinguish the pixels. (Unless you really can't, I haven't seen the screen).

But in any case, it's more of a marketing claim than a technical spec. They do not literally mean "this screen has the same 'resolution' as your retina". Your retina doesn't even have pixels! They just mean "it makes web pages looks great!".

So this "president of DisplayMate Technolgies" [sic] is tilting at windmills here.

Re:This looks like a typical straw man argument. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32517206)

He's not tilting at windmills. He's riding the coat tails of Steve Jobs by making an counterclaim that got picked up by slashdot.

Marketing 101

Re:This looks like a typical straw man argument. (4, Funny)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517230)

I've seen pictures of it, and it looks like crap. I have a nice 21" Viewsonic CRT monitor, running 1024x768

Re:This looks like a typical straw man argument. (1)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517430)

I've seen pictures of it, and it looks like crap. I have a nice 21" Viewsonic CRT monitor, running 1024x768

That's just because the reality distortion field doesn't affect cameras.

Re:This looks like a typical straw man argument. (3, Insightful)

SporkLand (225979) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517260)

I initially had the same reaction that the guy was getting pedantic about a term like "Retina display" which is obvious marketing bullshit.

But as I read the rest of the summary (not the article, mind you) I realized that he was picking apart the claim that Jobs made that the screen resolution is higher than that of the retina. Which I think is fair game to critique.

Re:This looks like a typical straw man argument. (2, Interesting)

nine-times (778537) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517274)

I suppose we can assume that they imply "at the typical distance at which you hold your iPhone" because otherwise the claim would be nonsense.

Yeah, that's the thing: You can't really talk about this sort of issue with pixel density alone. You can only talk about it as a function of both pixel density and viewing distance. So the first question is, what is the expected range of viewing distance for an iPhone?

If the claim becomes true when you hold the phone 18" from your eyes, then that doesn't seem like too much of an exaggeration to me. I'd estimate I usually hold my phone at about that distance. Regardless, the overall point is to say, "we put a really high-resolution screen in this phone", which is certainly true.

Focal distance (4, Informative)

Dan East (318230) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517618)

"Yeah, that's the thing: You can't really talk about this sort of issue with pixel density alone. You can only talk about it as a function of both pixel density and viewing distance."

No, actually it's possible to simply say that the human eye cannot discern individual pixels. Just like we can't discern individual molecules, no matter how close we hold the object to our eyes. There is an average minimum focal distance for the human eye, and if the object is held closer than that to try and discern more detail then it will become out of focus. If the DPI exceeds the human eye resolution at the typical minimum focal distance then the claim is valid.

Re:This looks like a typical straw man argument. (2, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517378)

>>>Your retina doesn't even have pixels!

Yes it does. It has light sensitive spots which can be considered the equivalent of pixels (picture elements), same as a CCD has. True the eye is biological and the CCD is mechanical, but the basic principle is the same..... millions of these pixels make-up the image we see.

Re:This looks like a typical straw man argument. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32517424)

They do not literally mean "this screen has the same 'resolution' as your retina". Your retina doesn't even have pixels!

What exactly do you think cones are? So yeah... your eye does have a resolution.

Re:This looks like a typical straw man argument. (1)

MLCT (1148749) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517586)

the Retina display's pixel density is so high, your eye is unable to distinguish individual pixels.

Ditto the monitor I am using - ditto my 5 year old LCD mobile phone held at a normal working distance. I guess apple don't want to just say "it is high res.", they need to cover it with a lot of marketing PR "gloss" - gloss tech people can see through, but that the starbucks crowd can't.

Re:This looks like a typical straw man argument. (4, Insightful)

John Whitley (6067) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517600)

They do not literally mean "this screen has the same 'resolution' as your retina".

Precisely. Quoting Steve Jobs' keynote from the WWDC via this transcript [macnn.com] :

There's a magic number around 300DPI where, about a foot away, you can no longer see pixels; limit of the human retina.

Note that in practice, this limit is going to vary (generally, get worse) by individual due to the overall condition of their visual system.

Eyestrain (4, Insightful)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517120)

Now holding iPhone in front of face at comfortable distance... Ruler tells me I'm holding it 18-20 inches away.

However, 12 inches is still comfortable, and I do see people holding their phones that close, just not me. And 24-30" seems to be where I hold it when I'm looking at it in the discreet from-the-waist manner.

This guys argument reminds me vaguely of the guy who asked about Itchy striking Scratchy's same rib twice and making two distinct notes.

Re:Eyestrain (1)

Dunx (23729) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517328)

I would go further - literally: 12" is very uncomfortable. I don't look at things that closely when I'm trying to paint them, let alone trying to read text. And 8"? Come off it.

I'm wondering where this guy got his "typical" from.

I sort of get it (0)

copponex (13876) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517360)

This guys argument reminds me vaguely of the guy who asked about Itchy striking Scratchy's same rib twice and making two distinct notes.

Apple is the top of the technology food chain now. I dislike Apple's marketing and pricing and corporate shenanigans - especially their views on "approving" software that I can run - and their success annoys me. So I get where this guy is coming from, though it's a pretty petty complaint.

I just hope the iPhone 4 inspires HTC to release an updated version of the Incredible with a front facing camera. Otherwise, the specs are either very close or better on the HTC.

Plus, it doesn't require a $30 accessory cable that will last three months, or force me to ask permission to run the apps that I want. Hell, it even gets reception in major cities! Which is good when you need to make phone calls.

Re:I sort of get it (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517476)

I think for you this is about more than just the "retina" claim... Keep the politics out of it.

Re:I sort of get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32517510)

what is this $30 accessory cable you speak of? i see them for a little as $1.70 on dealextreme. I bet you're the type of retard who buys monster HDMI cables, and Microsoft branded ethernet cables for your xbox too.

Re:Eyestrain (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517420)

18 inches? Wow. How can you see at that distance? I don't own an iPhone, but when I borrow my friend's I typically hold it at 6-8 inches, so I can read the website text. And yes I can see the "jaggy" edges.

The Question Is: +1, Helpful (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32517134)

Will the iPhone AND Apple ( The Company)

BLEND [youtube.com] ?

Yours In Anchorage,
K. Trout

12 inches? (2, Interesting)

ceejayoz (567949) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517144)

Has anyone done actual studies on average distance of a smartphone from one's eyes, or is he making up the 12 inch stat?

I'd say I range between 12 and 18 depending on how I'm using the phone.

Re:12 inches? (4, Insightful)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517524)

He's making up a whole bunch of stuff. A cursory check (OK, it's was only wikipedia) suggests that 20/20 vision requires an acuity of 1 arc-minute, not the 0.6 this guy quotes.

I call "bull" on the whole thing.

Re:12 inches? (5, Funny)

need4mospd (1146215) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517550)

My boss just walked by my desk and saw me holding a 12" drafting scale and cell phone to my forehead. Thank you slashdot.

It's still better (4, Insightful)

uvsc_wolverine (692513) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517150)

It's all just marketing speak anyway. It IS a higher-resolution display, but giving it a name like "retina" to a display is just the marketing guys trying to make you think that you won't notice any pixelation. That being said it is a better looking display than what's on the 3G/3GS. I think it's also likely that the average person won't notice much pixelation on the new display anyway.

12 INCHES (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32517178)

12 inches is the average??!? --- shame.....

reading distance of 12 inches (3, Funny)

Swampash (1131503) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517180)

Jesus, is this guy an Oompa-Loompa or something? I can't wait for the public relations backlash from the Union of Amputees and Thalidomide Children, complaining that Apple's marketing is biased towards people who can hold the Iphone 18 inches from their faces.

Those lying bastards! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32517194)

In other news, the iPad is not actually magical.

Re:Those lying bastards! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32517224)

Honestly, it will be when it gets one of these double-resolution displays. That is going to be one amazing-looking gadget.

A true "retina display" (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32517204)

You want to suck Steve Jobs cock while he goes "oh jeez" and then he cums in your eye.

In other news... (5, Funny)

Senjutsu (614542) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517214)

Android OS is not actually an operating system by or for Androids.

Windows 7 wasn't really the idea of some random people in cafes and showers.

Saturns - not actually made on Saturn. Surprising, I know.

The Emotion Engine has never shed a single tear.

Magic Markers have no magical properties.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32517300)

Mind = blown.

Re:In other news... (5, Funny)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517334)

Magic Markers have no magical properties.
  1. You have never given one to a three year old and watched the expression on the face of his mother. Magical.
  2. One word: inhale.

Re:In other news... (4, Informative)

rsborg (111459) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517518)

Magic Markers have no magical properties.
1. You have never given one to a three year old and watched the expression on the face of his mother. Magical.
2. One word: inhale.

3. Nor have you ever played Nethack [wikia.com]

Re:In other news... (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517620)

WonderBread is net even remotely interesting, let alone wondrous.

The AXE body spray depictions of its effect on women are misleading

TurboPascal did not contain an actual turbocharger.

However, the Hogg Brothers Cafe slogan, "We cheat the other guy, and pass the savings on to you!" was actually true -- I know, because I am that other guy!

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32517622)

Actually, the Windows 7 thing is (approximately) true. I was interviewing for an internship with the lead of Windows User Experience, and he explained that the folks in the commercials were actually people who filled out some survey, were flown to Redmond to participate in some testing, and asked if they wanted to be in a commercial.

It at least explains why they had such bad actors.

Wrong! (1)

Yo,dog! (1819436) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517232)

"So the iPhone has significantly lower resolution than the retina."
No, the resolution of the iPhone display is only lower than the retina at distances closer to the eye than 18 inches. At further distances, the resolution of the iPhone is higher than the retina.

The guy also said the iPhone's resolution was comparable to the Motorola Droid, but the iPhone 4 actually has 50% more pixels than the Droid.

Re:Wrong! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32517530)

What's this?
Score 0 for having called out the biased a-holes who moderate /.? Sure, criticize Apple all day long, but about yourself, you can't handle the truth.

higher res description (4, Informative)

The Bad Astronomer (563217) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517250)

The PC mag article linked is confusing and poorly worded. I also think it's not quite correct. Basically, the human eye at 12 inches, according to their expert, can resolve 477 pixels per inch. Anything higher than that won't make the picture any clearer, but anything lower will look fuzzier (or pixellated). Since the iPhone 4 has a pixel density of 326 per inch, the expert says the claims of retinal resolution are false. However, he assumes the human eye has a resolution of 0.6 arcminutes (there are 60 arcminutes to a degree). I doubt most people have that good of eyesight; the number I always hear is about 1 arcminute for the eye. At 12 inches, that corresponds to a display of 286 pixels per inch to get retinal resolution, which the iPhone surpasses. So sure, if someone with extremely good vision uses this new iPhone, it'll be ever so slightly blurry. But c'mon, we're geeks here, and all wear glasses anyway, right? And either way, I don't think this means the claims by Jobs are *false*. At worst they're are very slightly misleading.

Re:higher res description (1)

The Bad Astronomer (563217) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517288)

I should add that the article does state: "'It is reasonably close to being a perfect display, but Steve pushed it a little too far,' Soneira said." That's a reasonable statement. But just wait until the Apple haters and fanbois get into this. Yikes.

Re:higher res description (1)

DeadJesusRodeo (1813846) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517452)

What about the distance too? Do you really stick the phone one foot from your nose to read it? I hold it nearly 1.5 to 2 feet (at LEAST) normally. My eyesight sucks too - so if I looked at something at a foot or less, I'd have to take my glasses off.

It's all marketing malarky (I worked in print, so perhaps that's a bias) but I can tell the difference between a 300dpi laser jet page, and a 1200dpi linotronic typeset piece of film. I'd call out SJ on the "eye can't see more than 300dpi" business than "the phone held at a certain angle, at a certain distance, preferably at noon, but not on a leap year, with a cat present in the room".

What about the next iPhone? (2, Insightful)

KuNgFo0 (519426) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517264)

So if Apple claims the "pixel density is so high, your eye is unable to distinguish individual pixels" ... does that mean the iPhones v5, 6, 7, etc will continue to use the same resolution display since nothing higher will be noticeable by humans? Or is it obviously more likely that displays will continue to improve for the foreseeable future. Coming in 2011: iPhone featuring the revolutionary Retina Display HD!

This just in! (3, Funny)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517292)

The Nexus One is NOT in fact a real android!

You are NOT related to the Microsoft KIN!

The Blackberry is NOT edible! Neither is the LG Chocolate.

And you can NOT shave with a Moto Razr. Trust me, I have tried.

Presbyopia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32517302)

You insensitive clods! We over-45s need reading glasses to even see the screen, never mind the pixels!

AARGH! Full of lose. (1)

Anonymous Freak (16973) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517336)

First, he's can't be challenging that it has a "Retina Display", because that's an Apple Trademark. It obviously has a Retina Display. He can challenge Apple's assertion that the dpi of the display, when held at 12", is beyond the capabilities of the human eye. Absolutely he can challenge that.

Don't phrase it as challenging that the iPhone has a "Retina Display", though. (Especially when the so-called "attacker" actually PRAISES the display!)

Finally, I don't know about 12", anyway. I tend to hold my phone at about 18" by default. Maybe when I am not wearing my glasses I'll have it closer, (astigmatism, not near/far sighted, so my glasses don't make things look bigger or smaller,) but even then, if I close my astigmatized eye, 18" is about right.

So Jobs-o will just correct it to 18" instead of 12".

Class action waiting to happen (1)

BBTaeKwonDo (1540945) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517436)

I don't know resolution from revolution, but I'd bet that some class-action lawyer read this article and thought, "I can start a case based on this. I'll settle for a few hundred thousand for me and $5 coupons to the app store for the plaintiffs."

Balderdash (4, Insightful)

Ancient_Hacker (751168) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517482)

balderdash and poppycock, on so many levels:

(1) The human eye has very variable resolution. Down in the fovea it may be up at this guy's numbers, but much less everywhere else.

(2) The eye's color receptors are much farther apart, and therefore of poorer resolution, that the monochrome receptors. That's why the old NTSC standard had about 1/3 the color bandwidth than the Y bandwidth.

(3) The iPhone, and every other LCD screen, has three color elements per pixel, while the eye has like 1/3. That's a NINE TIMES difference that this guy is glossing over.

(4) It really doesn't matter. We don't spend our lives inspecting individual pixels-- we let our brain process the images into coherent high-level objects, such as "letters" and "faces".

Otherwise okay.

Maybe for perfect vision, but not for 20/20. (4, Informative)

AmunRa (166367) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517486)

According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] , for an 'excellent' human eye the PC World analyst is correct; however for us average joes with 20/20 vision (or worse) Apple's claims are accurate:-

For a human eye with excellent acuity, the maximum theoretical resolution is 50 CPD[32] (1.2 arcminute per line pair, or a 0.35 mm line pair, at 1 m).

...A resolution of 2 arcminutes per line pair, equivalent to a 1 arcminute gap in an optotype, corresponds to 20/20 (normal vision) in humans

If my math is correct then this is 60% worse than the 'excellent' eye; so the figure of 477 ppi at 12 inches is 286.2ppi; so well within the retina display's capability.

The real truth... (1)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517490)

You're all wrong. Everyone knows that Steve Jobs has a habit of slurring his "w"s into "r"s. Wetina is the actual name, and it's not for the screen. It means when a guy is walking down the street displaying his iPhone 4, it'll make all the girls wetina' you know where.

Why is this news? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517494)

Claiming a "retina display" without specifying a viewing distant is blatant bullshit. Every display is a "retina display" at some distance... for an iPhone, the distance just a few inches closer than its current competitors.

What did Steve say? (2, Insightful)

nick357 (108909) | more than 3 years ago | (#32517498)

According to arstechnica's keynote LiveBlog, Steve said:

Retina display has 326 pixels per inch ...
It turns out there's a "magic number" right around 300 pixels per inch. When you hold something about 10-12 inches away from your eye, there's a limit in the human retina to differentiate the pixels ...
at 326 pixels, we are comfortably over that limit

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/06/wwdc-keynote-steve-jobs-liveblog.ars [arstechnica.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...