Beta
×

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!

For Normals, Jobs' "Retina Display" Claim May Be Fair After All

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the sharp-dealing dept.

Displays 386

The Bad Astronomer writes "AT WWDC, Steve Jobs claimed that the iPhone 4's display has about the same resolution as the human eye — held at one foot away, the iPhone 4's pixels are too small to see. After reading an earlier Slashdot post about an expert disputing Jobs' claim, I decided to run the numbers myself. I found that Jobs is correct for people with normal vision, and the expert was using numbers for theoretically perfect vision. So to most people, the iPhone 4 display will look unpixellated."

cancel ×

386 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Correction (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32526112)

For Sheeple, Jobs' "Retina Display" Claim May Be Fair After All.

Go on.. mod me down.

math failure (4, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526456)

it's alright, the math assumes that nobody is nearsighted. Since nearsightedness is very common, the article's comments don't hold true at all.

Some people can see magnitudes smaller arcmin than .6 up close, in fact like .2 or so. [wrongplanet.net] Anyone with 20/10 vision (which is common with correction such as eyeglasses or contacts) is going to still see plenty of pixelation.

It's still a substantial improvement in pixels, but the article is incorrect.

Re:math failure (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526688)

Mod parent up-- he's right. With different light intensities, a couple of microns at arms' length isn't unreasonable. But wait, there's a reality distortion field....

So It's catching my droid then? (4, Interesting)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526118)

i'm holding my droid at 1 foot distance and I can't distinguish any single pixel. I have to get it to about 3-4 inches to do so convincingly.

Granted, anti-aliased fonts help a ton.

Re:So It's catching my droid then? (3, Interesting)

ohcrapitssteve (1185821) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526326)

I consider myself to have pretty good eye-sight, if not 20/20 (no glasses/lenses) and I really can't see a pixel on my iPhone 3G from a measured foot away either. I can from about 3" though. If Apple's going to increase the pixel count by four-fold, I don't think I'll ever see a pixel again...

Re:So It's catching my droid then? (1, Flamebait)

rcuhljr (1132713) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526424)

Yeah am I missing something? I really can't spot pixels in normal usage on my droid, even getting it closer than is comfortable.

the world seen through pixels. (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526594)

You mean that real life doesn't have pixels everywhere I look? OMG I'm trapped in the machine!

Seriously though, I remember one extra-long coding session. Near the end, everywhere I looked, things seemed to have a pixelated "overlay".

Of course, if the iJobs has a "retina display", so do a lot of other devices.

Re:the world seen through pixels. (5, Funny)

toastar (573882) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526638)

You mean that real life doesn't have pixels everywhere I look?

Have you ever seen how pixelated the beach is?

Re:So It's catching my droid then? (1)

tooyoung (853621) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526664)

If your Droid has more pixels per square inch, then yes, the iPhone is slowly catching up to your Droid.

I wear bifocals... (3, Funny)

Eggz Factor (455382) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526138)

... will it look even better for me?

Re:I wear bifocals... (1)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526198)

Hell, my eyes have been slowly irradiated into mush from decades of CRT usage, so I assume I'll be able to hold that phone two inches from my face without seeing any pixels.

Wrong or right (1, Interesting)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526140)

It's still marketing drivel along the lines of "blast processing". Wholly unnecessary...just tell us the resolution, Jobsy. No need to spice it up, the specs should speak for themselves.

Re:Wrong or right (5, Insightful)

al3 (1285708) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526186)

Specs might speak to the slashdot crowd, but I think Apple owes a lot of its success to a realizing that most consumers buy benefits, not features. The endless list of would-be iPod/iPhone killers that touted better features but failed to have an impact in the market are evidence of this.

Re:Wrong or right (-1, Troll)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526218)

Absolutely spot on. Thousands of naked New Yorkers demanded that they wanted The Retina Display feature and Apple provided. Take that Android!

Fucking fanbois.

Re:Wrong or right (3, Interesting)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526222)

Well, the Android phones have been having quite an impact in the market recently. The big benefit of "being able to run the software you want rather than what Steve Jobs says you can run" seems to speak to people, since that's the major thing Android has going for it that the iPhone doesn't.

Re:Wrong or right (4, Insightful)

vakuona (788200) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526340)

I think Android's popularity might have more to do with it being available on more devices, including much cheaper devices. Even then, the single model iPhone is still outselling it (counting different capacity iPhones as one model of course). You overestimate the average consumer's ability to care about things such as being able to run software from anywhere.

Re:Wrong or right (-1, Troll)

paeanblack (191171) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526510)

You overestimate the average consumer's ability to care about things such as being able to run software from anywhere.

The above comment brought to you by Apple Computer Corporation, circa 1988.

Re:Wrong or right (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526516)

You overestimate the average consumer's ability to care about things such as being able to run software from anywhere

Exactly, for the average person there are more than enough iPhone apps to do everything they care to do. Though I do prefer my blackberry, because I need a real network with proper service availability even in the sticks and also a querty keyboard is a must -- and please, fanbois, restrain yourselves from telling me yet again how great the onscreen keyboard is on your iPhone. I've tried it, and sorry but you're absolutely wrong about that.

Re:Wrong or right (4, Insightful)

e4g4 (533831) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526694)

I think Android's popularity might have more to do with it being available on a network other than AT&T.

Re:Wrong or right (4, Interesting)

NekSnappa (803141) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526366)

I think you're taking it too far with this statement.

The big benefit of "being able to run the software you want rather than what Steve Jobs says you can run" seems to speak to people

I'd say it's more of case of letting people know that Android phones do apps too. Joe or Jane Average could care less that the apps aren't "curated" in the "walled garden." They just want to know if the phone does apps, and how easy is it to get them.

Re:Wrong or right (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526548)

Well, the Android phones have been having quite an impact in the market recently. The big benefit of "being able to run the network you want rather than what Steve Jobs says you can run" seems to speak to people, since that's the major thing Android has going for it that the iPhone doesn't.

Apple went with the provider that paid them $400 / handset, and used frequencies that made it easy for them to use the same hardware on both sides of the ocean. It is worth noting, that suing this model they essentially sold a subsidized phone for $500+, this was a massive amount of money. In exchange they limited there customers to a point, I would be willing to be, that in a different universe, where the iPhonewas available on all US networks, there would be no Android.

Apple would have given up a lot of money for a while though (about $100 - $200/phone bringing it down to a typical phone subsidy from the $400 they get from AT&T).

Re:Wrong or right (4, Interesting)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526666)

The only reason my friends have cited for eschewing iPhone and going Android when it came out is "It's not AT&T". They think of Android phones as iPhones that work on other networks.

Re:Wrong or right (2, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526256)

Again though, why the use of meaningless words? Couldn't he have just said "the resolution/DPI is so dense that your eyes won't be able to distinguish individual pixels"? What, does the average Apple customer really seek the need of some special word to wrap up the device's capabilities in? And if they do, what does that say about their average customer?

I think it's insulting to the people that buy Apple's products, regardless of whether people seek it out or not.

Re:Wrong or right (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32526310)

In what way is "retina" a special word? Are you some kind of retard?

And I can just imagine the marketing division that would go up to the CEO of any company and say "You know what you should say in the big keynote speech? The resolution or dots per inch on this cellphone is so dense that one will not be able to distinguish one pixel from its neighbouring pixels. They'd all get sacked, and rightly so.

Re:Wrong or right (1, Troll)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526536)

In what way is "retina" a special word? Are you some kind of retard?

Possibly. I've been called worse.

And I can just imagine the marketing division that would go up to the CEO of any company and say "You know what you should say in the big keynote speech? The resolution or dots per inch on this cellphone is so dense that one will not be able to distinguish one pixel from its neighbouring pixels. They'd all get sacked, and rightly so.

I think this speaks poorly of the general public, not the marketing department.

People wouldn't do shit like this if it didn't work. The fact that it works is disparaging enough, let alone the fact that people take advantage of it.

Re:Wrong or right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32526652)

I think this speaks poorly of the general public, not the marketing department.

People wouldn't do shit like this if it didn't work. The fact that it works is disparaging enough, let alone the fact that people take advantage of it.


And yet I can absolutely assure you with 100% accuracy that there are instances where you do this exact same thing when dealing with fields with which you are not intimately familiar. I can guarantee that you refer to something every now and then by a simplified term that was developed purely for marketing reasons.

Re:Wrong or right (4, Insightful)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526320)

"the resolution/DPI is so dense that your eyes won't be able to distinguish individual pixels"(TM). OR...


"Retina Display"(TM).

Re:Wrong or right (2, Informative)

Robin47 (1379745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526324)

Again though, why the use of meaningless words? Couldn't he have just said "the resolution/DPI is so dense that your eyes won't be able to distinguish individual pixels"? What, does the average Apple customer really seek the need of some special word to wrap up the device's capabilities in? And if they do, what does that say about their average customer?

I think it's insulting to the people that buy Apple's products, regardless of whether people seek it out or not.

Because you sell the sizzle, not the steak.

Re:Wrong or right (1)

mugnyte (203225) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526398)

  right on, sir! exactly what i was going to say.

Re:Wrong or right (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526592)

Because you sell the sizzle, not the steak.

Which, as I've said before, speaks poorly of the average consumer. I don't know about you, but I don't sizzle. I eat steak. I don't care if it makes noise or not, I care if it tastes good.

Re:Wrong or right (1)

Albatrosses (1712146) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526686)

That's true, and I agree 100%, but unfortunately people like you and I are vastly in the minority.

Re:Wrong or right (1)

vakuona (788200) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526426)

Giving a feature a name is a good way to market the feature. It's not a special word. It's a name. Just like samsung makes a big deal about having AMOLED screens, or Philips markets TVs with a PixelPlus feature. It allows you to talk about the feature without boring your audience with technical details. And it's pretty good naming. It's easy for the audience to make the connection between the human retina and the screen, so Apple is creating a good association between the device and the name. The only thing it says about their average customer is that they are not nerds, and want the device's benefits explained to them in an easy way, and do not really care for the technical jargon.

Re:Wrong or right (1)

Draek (916851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526504)

Much like how Windows 95's success relative to MacOS proved most customers prefer a green background rather than a blue one?

If you want to argue that many consumers are scared by endless lists of technical data they don't understand then I'd agree with you, but your argument to support your assertion just sucks.

Re:Wrong or right (1)

schon (31600) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526530)

most consumers buy benefits, not features.

You are [mpgillusion.com] provably [wikipedia.org] wrong [steves-digicams.com] .

The endless list of would-be iPod/iPhone killers that touted better features but failed to have an impact in the market are evidence of this.

Evidence of what [androidandme.com] ?

Re:Wrong or right (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526556)

Yes. The willfully ignorant love meaningless marketing drivel.

OTOH, you can easily beat up on iDevices using the exact same sort of "benefits" driven arguments.

Re:Wrong or right (2, Insightful)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526192)

I dunno, the average joe wouldn't know what the hell Jobs was talking about.

Re:Wrong or right (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526582)

...too true.

"What's a retina?"

That's probably just as geeky to the average "consumer" as throwing pixel/DPI information at them.

Re:Wrong or right (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526470)

Or Sony's "Emotion Engine" [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Wrong or right (1)

Wuhao (471511) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526508)

The difference here is that "blast processing" was a vague, nebulous term that was never really elaborated on, and this is a very specific technical specification (the iPhone 4's 326 ppi screen), and is being compared against a reasonably specific reference metric (the sensitivity of the human eye). The practical upshot of this is that once you have a display whose pixels are so small that at a normal viewing distance nearly all of the population will be unable to distinguish neighboring pixels from each other, there is very little use in further improving resolution without also increasing screen size.

Do the specs speak for themselves? No, they don't, because while 326ppi makes perfect sense to me, I don't know anything about the maximum sensitivity of the human eye, and I'm interested to hear where that bar is set, whether this display really exceeds that, and what caveats I should be aware of in taking this metric into consideration when selecting screens for my own use.

Whether or not the iPhone 4 in particular meets this goal only of mild interest; it's a case study of a device that literally claims to be designed to have a higher resolution than the eye can distinguish. If it doesn't hit the mark, there's going to be a display that will come closer soon, and I'd like to be able to talk more knowledgeably about what this means.

Re:Wrong or right (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526682)

The difference here is that "blast processing" was a vague, nebulous term that was never really elaborated on,

Oh really?

"Sega's advertising continued to position the Genesis as the "cooler" console, and at one point in its campaign, it used the term "Blast Processing" to suggest that the processing capabilities of the Genesis were far greater than those of the SNES."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mega_Drive#Console_wars [wikipedia.org] , with the source cited as coming from 1up.com

Do the specs speak for themselves? No, they don't, because while 326ppi makes perfect sense to me, I don't know anything about the maximum sensitivity of the human eye, and I'm interested to hear where that bar is set, whether this display really exceeds that, and what caveats I should be aware of in taking this metric into consideration when selecting screens for my own use.

Placebo effect. Do you honestly think the average, non-technical person would notice this detail about the display had Jobs not said anything?

Having a beautiful, smooth screen isn't enough. People have to be told their eyes can't even tell how awesome it is to make it worth it. That's just fucking sad.

The real burning question (-1, Troll)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526148)

Will iPhone Phour allow me to "get gay" with a hat and then post on social networking sites about it?

Anti-Aliasing (4, Interesting)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526152)

One must not forget about Anti aliasing or the fact that each pixel contains 3 RGB sub pixels. This increases the effect PPI significantly.

Re:Anti-Aliasing (3, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526358)

If you can't see the pixels, what's the point of anti-aliasing?

Re:Anti-Aliasing (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526490)

So you can keep it closer to your face?

Re:Anti-Aliasing (1)

should_be_linear (779431) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526544)

Which brings interesting point: after monitor displays progress to this level, complicating algorithms for font anti-aliasing will become obsolete. Also, all day programming will be a lot cooler for my eyes.

Re:Anti-Aliasing (2)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526656)

Fat chance. Monitor panel resolutions (except for pretty esoteric models) appear to have levelled out - I'd imagine they're just using panels for TVs.

Re:Anti-Aliasing (3, Interesting)

adisakp (705706) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526578)

Anti-aliasing makes a high-res picture look even better.. especially for thin lines or fonts (text is lots of thin curved lines). When you have a subpixel width, you might not be able to see the pixels but the eye can tell the difference in brightness between a 2 pixel wide line and one that should be 1.5 pixels wide if it's not anti-aliased. Plus it's necessary if you want screen shots to look good when zoomed up or you want the software to work well at similar resolutions on a device with a larger display (i.e. iPad).

Again...Who cares (1)

sxedog (824351) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526154)

I mean one story is really too much on the topic. Isn't there anything more interesting out there in the world not focused on the iPhone's capabilities? Sheesh.

Re:Again...Who cares (1)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526472)

Who cares [imageshack.us] .

As far as bang for your buck, if your buck is tied to traffic and traffic can be represented by replies to stories, it looks like both Apple and Microsoft are both reliable topics.

retina display (4, Insightful)

suso (153703) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526162)

What bugs me is when a company uses a name for something that doesn't make sense.

When I hear "retina display" I think what you are talking about is a system that projects an image into my retina.

its apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32526318)

that means steve jobs is gonna punch you in the eye and you'll love the resulting display of sparkly lights!

Re:retina display (1)

ricosalomar (630386) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526328)

projects an image into my retina.

I believe that's exactly what they have. That's why you can "see" the screen.

Re:retina display (1)

Draek (916851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526532)

And that's why it's called a "screen". What difference is there between a "retina screen" and a regular screen to warrant the marketing buzzword?

Re:retina display (5, Insightful)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526354)

Yes. That's what it does. There's a light in the back of the iPhone, followed by an LCD grid, which filters the light, which goes to the lens of your eye, which projects an image on your retina. So it seems like Steve pretty much hit the nail on the head. It's a system that projects an image into your retina.

Re:retina display (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32526434)

I don't see how this system is doing anything different from a normal display besides having a better resolution than before.
It's not _projecting onto ones retina_ any more than another LCD screen is.
It generates images and text on a lit screen. It's not directed that image to a specific point past the screen like a projector does.
If it did, it wouldn't be visible from other angles or by other people as it would be focused at another point.

It's just a marketing name, for crap's sake (5, Insightful)

name_already_taken (540581) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526660)

It's not _projecting onto ones retina_ any more than another LCD screen is.

But you see, they all do that. All visible objects do that. That's how our eyes work. Light reflected or emitted from objects uses the lens in your eye to project an image onto your retina. It is technically correct, and no, it's not anything special, other than being a high resolution display.

Could it be, that this is just a trade name? (and that perhaps some people have a little too much time on their hands?)

When I search for a document on my Mac, I don't expect an actual Spotlight to shine on the document.

When I restore a file from a backup using Time Machine, I don't imagine that there's actual time travel taking place.

If I use the feature that shows all of my overlapping windows resized so they fit on the screen and I can choose which one to work on, I don't expect the crew from 20/20 or 60 Minutes or Dateline NBC to show up and do an actual Exposé.

Holy crap, I just found out there's no control tower or runway involved in using Airport networking! What a complete and total fraud!

MobileMe doesn't actually cause me to move around either!

And, worst of all, the damned Magic Mouse doesn't have any magical powers! I just tried to cast a Patronus Charm with it, just like in those Harry Potter movies, and the damn thing didn't work at all. It doesn't even fly around unless you throw it. I want my money back!

Re:retina display (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32526396)

or It could be like Mandrake the Magician's Hypnotic Display, where the Hypnotized person would project from Retina on to a flat surface. (I can't seem to find the picture on the internet. I guess i need to scan it).

Re:retina display (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526410)

    That's what I thought when I first read it too. Hmm, a wearable eyepiece that projects the image directly into your eye. That could be useful. Then I read what it actually means, and was again disappointed with marketing fluff.

Re:retina display (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526454)

That's what I thought when I first read it too. Hmm, a wearable eyepiece that projects the image directly into your eye (i.e., nothing visible to outside viewers). That could be useful. Then I read what it actually means, and was again disappointed with marketing fluff.

Re:retina display (1)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526648)

Ultimately, everything you see (barring hallucinations) is projected onto your retina.

Call to action (2, Insightful)

wombatmobile (623057) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526166)

Let me make this clear: if you have perfect eyesight, then at one foot away the iPhone 4’s pixels are resolved. The picture will look pixellated. If you have average eyesight, the picture will look just fine.

Beer!

Marketing (2, Interesting)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526168)

To claim any display has the same resolution as the human eye when what they really mean is that it looks "less pixelly" is misleading at best.

Re:Marketing (1)

Labcoat Samurai (1517479) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526474)

Indeed. Particularly since the eyesight variation is in focus, not resolution.

We can't tell, anyway (5, Funny)

A. B3ttik (1344591) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526170)

Most Slashdotters will never be anywhere close to one foot from a vagina anyway, so it's not like we'll have anything to compare it to when surfing our porn on it.

Re:We can't tell, anyway (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526420)

just get a good look on the way out when you're being born, then, i guess...

Re:We can't tell, anyway (1)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526494)

Speak for yourself. I get more pussy than an animal shelter. I'm humble too!

Re:We can't tell, anyway (1)

tecnico.hitos (1490201) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526572)

Be glad that lord Steve still allows you to surf for porn.

As long as ... (5, Funny)

ryan.onsrc (1321531) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526174)

... every one turns off their WiFi

Re:As long as ... (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526234)

I wonder if someone had an Evo, if they could just turn on Wifi hotspot and let Steve connect through that.

Re:As long as ... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32526376)

I wonder if someone had an Evo, if they could just turn on Wifi hotspot and let Steve connect through that.

Wifi hotspots were actually the problem. There were over 500 access points in the room because of MiFis and phone-generated hotspots. I really doubt that one more would have helped.

Print Resolution (5, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526196)

The only people who are going to look at the screen and think "hey, they said I wouldn't be able to see the pixels but I can!" are people who look at printed magazines and think "wow, when are they going to get rid of all these dots?" The screen has print level resolution and, as a graphic designer, that simply blows my mind. As has been mentioned in that other thread, graphic designers do digital work in 300 dpi for print work and 72 dpi for online work. If this screen technology becomes the new norm, we'll be doing all work at 300 dpi, which is damn, damn, damn impressive to look at. At that point, the technology bottleneck will be the pipes (a 72 dpi image is quite a bit smaller than a 300 dpi image, after all...). I do hope this tech spreads to lots of other devices and computer displays.

But, yes, anyone who claims that Apple was lying about it being a "retinal" display is simply attempting to pick a needless fight. Ignore them and move on.

Re:Print Resolution (1)

hibiki_r (649814) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526276)

Now, what I want is a 21' monitor with the same dpis, instead of crappy 1080p resolutions, no matter the monitor size.

Re:Print Resolution (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32526282)

Once again whisper_jeff has his head firmly up Apple's ass. Ignore them and move on.

Re:Print Resolution (0, Troll)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526336)

But, yes, anyone who claims that Apple was lying about it being a "retinal" display is simply attempting to pick a needless fight. Ignore them and move on.

Or they're just pointing out that apple has a ridiculous marketing point right there. Trivial point, trivial counterpoint, it's all trivial, don't just say the counterpoint is silly.

Re:Print Resolution (1)

snowboardin159 (1744212) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526346)

But what about us with perfect vision???

Re:Print Resolution (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526458)

Did you read anything that has been written on this subject? Apple does not have a "ridiculous marketing point". The vast number of people (and, by vast, we're talking 98%+ of the population) will look at the screen and not see pixels. That isn't a "ridiculous marketing point" - it's a bold leap forward in display technology that deserves to be highlighted. Try paying attention to the details of the discussion before simply hating on Apple. This isn't marketing mumbo jumbo - this is a display that is capable of print quality graphics. If you don't realize why that is an important leap forward in display technology, then you shouldn't involve yourself in the discussion.

And, unless you look at a magazine and think "oh my gawd, so many dots - they need to deal with this" you're NOT GOING TO SEE THE PIXELS when you look at an iPhone 4 screen.

Re:Print Resolution (2, Interesting)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526484)

As printers, we do CT images at 300dpi or higher, but we don't print at 300dpi.

150lpi AM screening does fine for images, but try rasterizing your fonts at 300dpi and run them through a 150lpi AM screen. It will be visibly poor quality.

Even 300dpi rasterized fonts into a stochastic FM system are going to look fairly poor by print standards.

In reality, we print text at much higher raster resolutions, more like 1200dpi or 2400dpi in the final post-screening plate render at most shops.

If you handle 1-bit TIFFs, you'll see this as well, none of them are going to be 300dpi, because that's just not enough resolution for text.

Re:Print Resolution (1)

DeadJesusRodeo (1813846) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526564)

It'll be a while before it spreads. Even the iPad's screen size would bring the A4 processor to it's knees. And as far as what dpi designers use - that's a false statement. Designers design for whatever they output - and most of the time LPI is what we're speccing to in print - not DPI. Silkscreen could be as low as 33lpi (or less). Newsprint, 70-100lpi, Magazines 133lpi, good quality stock could go as high as 200lpi or higher.

None of those numbers have anything to do with DPI apart from the source image before it's destroyed by the screen. Since lpi limits your output, you generally did no more than 2x those numbers (1.6 before computers had decent graphics) because once you go to print, it's meaningless to have a 600dpi image if you're going to 133lpi print. It's not going to look better than 266.

And don't get me started on source size and reductions.

Re:Print Resolution (3, Insightful)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526704)

But, yes, anyone who claims that Apple was lying about it being a "retinal" display is simply attempting to pick a needless fight. Ignore them and move on.

Hm, maybe. It's certainly legitimate to object to the ill-chosen, ad hoc terminology that clashes with the existing meaning of the phrase. It's also legitimate to quibble over the enormous amount of wiggle room in the definition. Apple wasn't lying, but they were making claims without a great deal of actual substance. People get fed up with Apple's constant hyperbole, especially when the product in question is, in the end, a PDA with a larger than usual screen.

That said, no one disputes that the iPad will be a great new platform for graphic designers and the advertisers who employ them.

Re:Print Resolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32526726)

http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1682058&cid=32526458 [slashdot.org]

What this guy said can be basically directed at what you said.

And trust me, as a linux and FOSS fanboi I find reasons to be pissed at apple all the time.

Re:Print Resolution (1)

John Whitley (6067) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526722)

The screen has print level resolution and, as a graphic designer, that simply blows my mind.

I recall seeing a demo of an IBM Roentgen[1] display [acadia.org] back in 2001 at SIGCHI. This display was color 200ppi display with a 16.3" diagonal, developed with telemedicine uses in mind (including remote examination of patient x-ray results). IBM was showing off museum-quality archival scans of famous artwork, absolutely readable footnotes in serifed text with 4 point (physical) font size, and ridiculously unreadable icons and text in Windows. ;-) This display was, likewise, completely mind-blowing at the time.

I knew it would be a long time for that tech to trickle down into the mainstream, but I never thought then that it'd be in handheld form first.

[1] Named for Wilhelm Roentgen [wikipedia.org] who won the Nobel Prize for producing and detecting x-rays.

One in the eye for the haters. (3, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526202)

There's one in the eye for all the haters on the previous story who just took the random guy off the internet's word for it that Apple was wrong.

Re:One in the eye for the haters. (1)

Straterra (1045994) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526364)

There's one in the eye for all the haters on this story who just took the random guy off the internet's word for it that Apple was right.

Nerd fight!!! (1)

SoupGuru (723634) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526228)

This is what I would call an extremely interesting discussion...

sigh

Re:Nerd fight!!! (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526380)

True, but I do think it's interesting that we're starting to make handhelds that are beyond our visual capacity. Makes me feel somewhat like we've triumphed over nature again.

Anyway, hold the phone, I recall something about slashdot being news for... some group of people... who were those people again?

Re:Nerd fight!!! (1)

mike260 (224212) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526558)

What doesn't kill you only prolongs the inevitable

You mean 'delays', not 'prolongs'.

Retinal Display (1)

Bicx (1042846) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526262)

Found some more resources and examples of retinal display here [focusonretina.com] .

Oh wait...

Oh puhlease !! (0, Troll)

hubdawg (1148477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526272)

Get off it. iPhone is still owned by a corporation that has gone from innovative, to more constraining and restrictive than the RIAA in many respects.

Consumer vs. Geek (1)

schutzhund (105013) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526356)

IMHO Apple/Jobs has learned to sell directly to the average consumer and bypassed the geek promotion theory. To their target market I think his description was a much better sales statement than listing the resolution. Their market is Betty Lou that wants cutting edge, but still has trouble embedding a link in an email.

There are many anti-Apple people. If Apple told them, don't jump off the cliff you'll die... they'd look right at Jobs, give him the finger, and jump off.

Re:Consumer vs. Geek (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526636)

Nope.

"plays your Bluray disks" is a far more useful statement.

"retina display" is just vague and meaningless like many things ad men put on packages.

Is 1 foot a reasonable distance? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526368)

I seem to be about 9 inches away from my phone. Is smaller than an iPhone though so maybe users do have them further away.

300dpi printers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32526388)

Where do you think the figure for 300dpi printers came from in the 90's?

Re:300dpi printers (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526576)

72dpi x 4.166666666666667?

Oh its all so clear now! (2, Funny)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526416)

See I didn't know you meant "normal" people. I thought you meant "Super" people with like xray vision, heat vision, and telescopic vision and all that shit.

It makes so much more sense now when you explain it that way.

P.S. Of course my vision (-11.25,-11.5) an 8 bit Nintendo somehow running on a Lite-Brite would likely have more "pixels" or resolution than my eyes, so I guess it is all about perspective. Maybe if I glue two iPhone4's to my retina's I will be cured, surely a crass miracle such as that should be child's play for such a monumental device...

get a life (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32526562)

stop being a fan-boy, and find a better use for your time..
Prophet Jobs can be mistaken too....

iPhone significantly better than Droid (1)

Yo,dog! (1819436) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526568)

The iPhone 4 also has 50% more pixels than the Motorola Droid, which the expert had said was "comparable".

Who the F cares (1)

m0s3m8n (1335861) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526606)

My god. Just think of the poor electrons wasted by these posts. Can't wait for the first lawsuit because someone CAN see individual pixel.

Normals? (1)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526610)

Abby Normals?

"Jobs is actually correct." Says that blog. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32526632)

"Jobs is actually correct." Says that blog. But not really. As another poster put it, if you have really BAD eyesight, then the Gameboy has "retina display".

Te poor eyesight is because of the lens, not the retina. The retina on a person with 12/20 eyesight is as good as someone with 20/20 or 30/20 eyesight. The lens in front is just crap.

And what's this "new and exciting" (yeah, right) display called? Lensdisplay? CorneaDisplay? No.

Retina Display.

If it hadn't been given a new dumb name as a marketing feature (and that "about 300dpi" figure means the N900 has had retina display for ages, hence not new and exciting), there would be nothing to worry about.

If Jobs had said it had 4x the resolution so that apps for the old iPhone would be as crisp as native resolution and new iPhone aps EVEN CRISPER, then I would be A-OK with it.

But no, since he over hyped that out the arse, we get to call it a POS.

He upped the stakes.

We upp the downsides.

Don't like it, Jobs? Then stop over-selling.

PS one message on that blog shows why this is a problem:

"Man, forget the hype, I’m just impressed that they can pack pixels at such density."

Uh, the iPhone isn't the first.

But because it's been given a new name and hawked as new and innovative by "new and innovative" Steve Jobs at the expo, this fan jumps straight to the conclusion that this is new and amazing.

It's *OK*, but not impressive as an Apple innovation.

pixels and dots per inch are different (3, Informative)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32526676)

The human eye can resolve much finer than 300 dpi --- 400 dpi is where fonts start to look nice on a laserprinter (notably the NeXT laserprinter had a 400dpi mode in addition to the then more standard 300dpi --- it was distinctly noticeable when one changed printing modes) and imagesetters are easily differentiated by their output at 1,270 ppi vice 2,540 ppi (and there are models which go higher) --- see the book _Counterpunch: Making Type in the 16th Century, Designing Typefaces Now_ by Fred Smeijers for electron micrographs and a discussion of this which shows that the human eye can easily see the thickness of a 1/1,270th of an inch curl of steel.

Granted, the iPhone screen is 326 _pixels_ per inch, so one gets anti-aliasing, yielding a higher effective dpi, and possibly sub-pixel rendering, but screens need to get better yet.

Image resolution is measured in several ways:

ppi (pixels per inch) --- input / file resolution
dpi (dots per inch) --- output resolution for a single ink colour
lpi - (lines per inch) --- output resolution for ``halftones'' which allows the simulation of multiple levels when one can only do on/off --- newspapers use ~85 lpi, uncoated stock in books ~133lpi, magazines 150 lpi or higher, art books 200 lpi --- different printing processes/tecniques are used for better quality or fewer generations

A pixel is a ``picture element'' a unit of a raster grid which can be more finely differentiated than just black or white --- the coarsest pixel I can think of would be the monochrome NeXT Cube (and later Slabs) which had black, white and two shades of grey.

Try putting a 326 ppi greyscale image of a Gustav Doré engraving on the iPhone and compare that to the actual engraving in a book --- the difference between them will be obvious to anyone w/ good vision.

Different printing and halftoning techniques make lpi rather complex --- stochastic screening does away w/ it for example and exhibits improvement to the limits of output resolution --- 3600 dpi on some imagesetters.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>