@LoneRider
Ok, everyone's entitled to have own opinions. But please don't say your shots aren't macro. They're 4 the size of actual iPod's 3,5'' screen + you wouldn't be able to focus your camera from such a tiny distance. The size of your pics is so big that normally nobody see the screen like this.
I'm not trying to argue about the difference - it is sure obvious, but in real life conditions it's not that noticable like shown on your pics. That's how I see it and that's my own opinion.
Agreed, we all are entitled to our opinions. I just don't like when people state their
opinions as
fact.
In your post you dismissed the difference as
"Huge difference is only visible on macro mode picture shots". You made an
absolute statement that is false. You did not present this as opinion
("I think/don't think..." or
"As far as I am concerned..."). On top of that, you inserted a false assumption of the photos being macro shots.
In the above post you now make a
relative statement
("it's not that noticable..") instead of an absolute and express what is clearly opinion
("That is how I see it"). You've changed from "
Only visible with macro" to
"It's obvious, but in real life not as noticable as the picture".
As to "macro", the size of a print (whether paper or digital) has nothing to do with whether or not it is
macro. A reproduction size larger than life is
magnification. The definition of
macro is that the image captured on the film (negative or a digital sensor) is the same
physical size (1:1)or larger (2:1) as the subject. To do macro of an iPod Touch I'd have to have a large format camera instead of my APS sensor sized Nikon. The best I could do is macro on a portion of the ipod screen (a rectangle of about 15mm x 23 mm).
The picture I took was using a Nikon 16-85mm zoom at about 62mm. 50mm (or 35mm on APS sensor) has long been considered the equivalent of the human eye "perspective", so yes there is about a 1.8x magnification of the perspective in addition to any magnification of the image based on the display screen showing the image. The 10" distance stated was a guess (hence being referred to as "
about 10") and I may have been a little farther away. I am not sure what the minimum focus distance of that lens is off the top of my head, but I do know that it is
not capable of macro photography.
As to magnification due to screen size, this is relative to the screen used for viewing the image. On my ipod touch for example, compared to actual size the image is actually
reduced. Even still the difference between the screens in the image is readily descernible to the eye at normal viewing distance. Also, contrary to your earlier post,
to me the clarity is
more apparent on the images than on the text (though I can still see a difference in the text). You stated
"It does provide almost non vivisible difference in anything exept texts. Games, applications, movies, pictures - it's gonna be almost identical experience". This reads to me more of a conclusion rather than an opinion. The fact is that statement is your purely subjective opinion.
Text (in any format) is generally clearly defined with good contrast between text and background. The higher resolution makes the text crisper but, with the inherent contrast of text I don't see a lot of improvement as to the readability for me. Images on the other hand don't always have such clear borders, demarkations, etc. that along with the addition of colors and graduations, I think the higher resolution helps present a smoother, clearer presentation of those images. Admittedly it comes own to personal preference but clearly there IS a difference.
All of the above may be a little more specific (or anal
) than necessary, but I am one of those folks who prefers to be specific, literal, and accurate as I toss out words to describe things.
If I have time tonight I will try to post up a no-magnification perspective at "normal" use distance and an actual macro shot of a screen portion to try and show a more "accurate" representation.