The iPhone Isn't Retina

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by onthecouchagain, Nov 14, 2012.

  1. macrumors 604

    onthecouchagain

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    #1
    In fact, as it turns out, nothing is yet a Retina display. Not scientifically, anyway:

    http://www.cultofmac.com/173702/why-retina-isnt-enough-feature/

    "Steve Jobs said that the human eye, viewing a display from 12 inches away, can’t discern individual pixels if the density is over 300 pixels per inch. Except that this “magic” number is wrong. The real number is closer to nine hundred pixels per inch.

    Apple’s definition of Retina is based upon the vision of seniors."

    Apple marketing, for the win.
     
  2. macrumors 604

    BaldiMac

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    #2
    Apple invented and defined the term "retina display". The fact that the iPhone display meets that definition means that it's a retina display.

    That said, the human eye can absolutely perceive much higher pixel densities.
     
  3. macrumors 68010

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    #3
    So 900 PPI is Retina? That's ridiculous, we won't have the battery or processing power to support those displays for many years.

    I can't distinguish pixels on my iPhone 5, and I'm fine with that.
     
  4. BFizzzle, Nov 14, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2012

    macrumors 68020

    BFizzzle

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Location:
    Austin TX
    #4
    like the above said..they coined the term retina display.. so they can define it as they please..

    This is like all the George Lucas people telling him what star wars should be.




    i guess i have senior vision too :p at 24 years old. my iphones resolution looks smooth as ****
     
  5. scaredpoet, Nov 14, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2012

    macrumors 603

    scaredpoet

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    #5
    Wow, I never knew cult of mac hired actual vision neuroscientists that could make authoritative claims about human vision!

    Oh wait, they haven't. The article says "most science" disagrees with Apple on human vision, but doesn't list a single research article. It mentions Raymond Soneira, but his findings are widely disputed, and pretty much panned as being too mired in semantics.

    It's also ironic that Soneira's own company has listed the iPhone 5 as the "best phone display" they've seen.

    Meanwhile, actual vision neuroscientists and other real scientists have concluded that the marketing or these displays as "Retina" are pretty much adequately truthful.

    But let's get down to brass tacks here. Have YOU looked a retina display? Can YOU discern the pixels from normal viewing distances? Are there any other manufacturers that have done a better job than Apple in this regard?

    If your answer to any of the above questions is "no," then I fail to see the point of this thread.
     
  6. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2011
    Location:
    Finland
  7. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    #7
    That would make sense if they invented a term, say, "mumu display". "Retina" obviously has very specific meaning which Apple actually confirmed in their PR materials. So, the use of retina in the context of iDevices is indeed misleading.
     
  8. macrumors 604

    BaldiMac

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    #8
    You can spin it however you like, but it doesn't change the facts.
     
  9. macrumors 68020

    BFizzzle

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Location:
    Austin TX
    #9
    hit em with some knowledge
     
  10. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    #10
    Your assumption that if one can not see individual pixel the display is "retina" is false. The eye may not see individual pixels but it can (and does) still see the improvements in picture quality. I guess, we'll soon have two different terms: Apple's Retina Displays (TM) and real retinal displays (like HTC Droid DNA)

    ----------

    I am not spinning anything, Apple does - with their "retina", "magical", "revolutionary" and "thinnest in the World" (they are not) phones.
     
  11. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2011
    Location:
    Finland
    #11
    Retimagionary.
     
  12. macrumors 68030

    tymaster50

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2012
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #12
    Can you see each individual pixel? No? Okay then. Nobody cares lol.
     
  13. thread starter macrumors 604

    onthecouchagain

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    #13
    I actually agree with a lot of all your points. Screens look great now.
     
  14. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    #14
    Wrong question. Can you see which display has the better picture? Yes, we can. Just compare the pictures on iPhone and HTC Droid DNA.
     
  15. macrumors 604

    BaldiMac

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    #15
    Of course, you're spinning it. Apple defined the term "retina display". You can't just change the definition to whatever you want it to be and then claim that they are wrong.
     
  16. scaredpoet, Nov 14, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2012

    macrumors 603

    scaredpoet

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    #16
    Uhh, Your assumption that I made any such assumption is false. But, there's plenty of actual researchers who have made a conclusion to this effect, not merely an assumption. And I deferred to their judgement, since they tend to know more about these things that you or I.

    Going by the OP's article, if HTC were to market this as "true Retina" they too, would be misleading.

    And going by your own assertions that picture quality is important and noticeable, Gizmodo disagrees with you that the Droid DNA excels in that regard. While PPI is high, all of the other factors that make a good display (color accuracy, contrast, brightness) are severely lacking. Those are huge sacrifices to make, just to be able to brag that more pixels have been packed in.

    "The HTC Droid DNA isn't a bad screen by any means. But it's the banner feature on this phone, and it's a step backward; it still lags behind the HTC One X and iPhone 5. Which seems like a wasted opportunity in a major way."
     
  17. macrumors 604

    BaldiMac

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    #17
    How is it the wrong question? That's how Apple defined "retina display"!
     
  18. macrumors 68030

    tymaster50

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2012
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #18
    it's just a screen, we can all sit around and look at the screen trying to spot a pixel forever and we won't. The people that actually researched this should be doing something a little more important than figuring out how many pixels the eye can see.
     
  19. macrumors 65816

    Troneas

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Location:
    At the alternatives section.
    #19
    ugh what?


    the OP is precisely stating that the "definition" of the term "retina display" that apple gave to it is inaccurate in scientific terms, if not misleading.


    yes the iphone5 is retina display according to apple's claim but it contradicts the definition they themselves gave to it. following your line of thought we can all then come up with fancy words and give them the definition that suits us regardless if its true or not.
     
  20. macrumors Nehalem

    Applejuiced

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Location:
    At the iPhone hacks section.
    #20
    Wow, the hate:D
    What are you even doing here at an iphone forum then?
    Go find the Android site that you belong to.
     
  21. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    #21
    That would be relevant if we were talking about those other aspects. Of course they are important. And there will be other high resolution displays with better color reproduction and contrast. Besides, Gizmodo has not even had a real access to DNA yet (nobody had).

    ----------

    Here, on iPhone forums, I am discussing iPhones. Weird, right?
     
  22. macrumors 604

    BaldiMac

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    #22
    How can it be an inaccurate definition if they invented the term? :confused: That's like a parent naming their newborn son "Fred" and you claiming that they are wrong. :D

    The article itself is careful to differentiate between a "retina display" and a new term they invented called "true retina". Apple never claimed that a retina display was the limit of human perception.
     
  23. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2011
    #23
    I can see the pixels on the iPhone 4 display; of course, I have to hold it one to two inches away from my face to focus on them—but I can see them easily with white-on-black text. It's a very subtle grid—it's more noticeable on curved icons and text because there's a very slight "jagged" edge.

    I usually hold my iPhone about 8-12 inches away from my face, and at that distance I can't distinguish the pixels at all.
     
  24. macrumors Nehalem

    Applejuiced

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Location:
    At the iPhone hacks section.
    #24
    Discussing how much you hate iphones or Apple is kinda weird if you ask me.
    But whatever makes you happy and gets your anger and frustration out I guess:D
    Still think you would fit better in an android forum;)
     
  25. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Location:
    Southern California
    #25
    they are also not made with apples either. Damn you for making me think they were delicious!!!!!!

    Of course its marketing. I cant imagine anyone with a brain that though that the retina in the eye and retina display were the same.
     

Share This Page