Chances of higher res MacBook Air?

[gentlefury]

if you watch the iPhone 4 keynote, it's quite clear that calling it a retina display was based on the fact that your eye cannot distinguish between pixels at an average viewing distance.
Steve Jobs spoke specifically about the viewing distance, and that when using an iPhone, the PPI number needed is around 300. he then went on to say that 326 is safely over this number.

you say how the iPhone is the only screen with this 'retina' display, and therefore the term is specific to the device, but it isn't.
Apple, when referring to a display being retina, clearly mean that at average viewing distance you can't differentiate pixels.
lets say they double the pixel count horizontally and vertically for the next 13" MBP. that'd be a resolution of 2880x1800.
that resolution on a display 13.3" in size gives a PPI of 227.
Because of the distance from the screen though, its highly likely that 227 PPI is more than enough to make it impossible to distinguish individual pixels from where you normally view your macbook from.
'Retina' can apply to any display, but the PPI needed to achieve it changes.

How is that clear....besides you thinking it is. I am talking about facts, not opinions, or speculations. The fact is, Samsung developed a 330ppi display panel. That is all. No need to speculate or come up with random formulas to explain your reasoning. As I said, again, they are developing a "Retina" display tablet that is 330 ppi....explain that with your arbitrary theories.

----------

if you watch the iPhone 4 keynote, it's quite clear that calling it a retina display was based on the fact that your eye cannot distinguish between pixels at an average viewing distance.
Steve Jobs spoke specifically about the viewing distance, and that when using an iPhone, the PPI number needed is around 300. he then went on to say that 326 is safely over this number.

you say how the iPhone is the only screen with this 'retina' display, and therefore the term is specific to the device, but it isn't.
Apple, when referring to a display being retina, clearly mean that at average viewing distance you can't differentiate pixels.
lets say they double the pixel count horizontally and vertically for the next 13" MBP. that'd be a resolution of 2880x1800.
that resolution on a display 13.3" in size gives a PPI of 227.
Because of the distance from the screen though, its highly likely that 227 PPI is more than enough to make it impossible to distinguish individual pixels from where you normally view your macbook from.
'Retina' can apply to any display, but the PPI needed to achieve it changes.

----------



why don't you provide a 'white paper', seeing as you're clearly wrong?

I have no need to provide a white paper, ITS ****ING MATH!!!!!

You are talking about something that has nothing to do with math...it is all speculation and theory! That requires a technical white paper to explain the THEORY!!!!

Do you know anything about engineering at ALL?!?!?!?

 

[pgiguere1]

Technically it is 330....again (Display size: 2.91" × 1.94" (7.4cm × 4.93cm) = 329.65 PPI, 0.0771mm dot pitch, 108669 PPI² <<-- hard math....not ******** marketing). Regardless of what is printed.

Also, again, can you please provide a white paper that reports this to be true....if not, it is just garbage that has been speculated by internet people...and has no bearing with reality.

You didn't do no math at all, you just copy and pasted results from the preset of this site which are just an estimation that doesn't take into account the exact screen dimensions. Apple's numbers are the true ones.

As for my source, it's what Apple has claimed from the beginning, and that's also what you learn in optical physics class, you know, at school. Read this and you should understand better. We have known the optical resolution of the human eye for decades, it has nothing to do with internet speculation.

 

[Onimusha370]

How is that clear....besides you thinking it is. I am talking about facts, not opinions, or speculations. The fact is, Samsung developed a 330ppi display panel. That is all. No need to speculate or come up with random formulas to explain your reasoning. As I said, again, they are developing a "Retina" display tablet that is 330 ppi....explain that with your arbitrary theories.

----------



I have no need to provide a white paper, ITS ****ING MATH!!!!!

You are talking about something that has nothing to do with math...it is all speculation and theory! That requires a technical white paper to explain the THEORY!!!!

Do you know anything about engineering at ALL?!?!?!?

trust me, i know a fair bit about math, and engineering to some extent.
but thats irrelevant.
read this.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/198402/does_the_iphone_4_really_have_a_retina_display_updated.html

 

[gentlefury]

This is a pointless debate since its clear that nobody involved has a clue what they are talking about, only what they read on gizmodo. So you winz the internetz if that makes you happy!

 

[Onimusha370]

You didn't do no math at all, you just copy and pasted results from the preset of this site which are just an estimation that doesn't take into account the exact screen dimensions. Apple's numbers are the true ones.

As for my source, it's what Apple has claimed from the beginning, and that's also what you learn in optical physics class, you know, at school. Read this and you should understand better. We have known the optical resolution of the human eye for decades, it has nothing to do with internet speculation.

spot on!

Also, a nice quote from the pc world article.
'If you sit four feet away from a 50" 1080p television, you'll see pixels. If you sit 100 feet away, you won't. The distance between any two visual elements is a matter of how many pixels per "arc degree" of vision it covers'

 

[gentlefury]

You didn't do no math at all, you just copy and pasted results from the preset of this site which are just an estimation that doesn't take into account the exact screen dimensions. Apple's numbers are the true ones.

Yup, I used that because it is easier than typing everything....now go ahead and type in the resolutions that I told you...it will equal to 330ppi....that was achieved by the simplest of math imaginable! ppi means PIXELS PER INCH!!! Multiply the vertical inches by the ppi of 330 and you get the resolution, repeat with the horizontal! That site is just a calculator that makes it easier to copy and paste results.

Would you like me to make a spreadsheet that results in the same answers so you feel better about my source?

 

[Jb07]

Yup, I used that because it is easier than typing everything....now go ahead and type in the resolutions that I told you...it will equal to 330ppi....that was achieved by the simplest of math imaginable! ppi means PIXELS PER INCH!!! Multiply the vertical inches by the ppi of 330 and you get the resolution, repeat with the horizontal! That site is just a calculator that makes it easier to copy and paste results.

Would you like me to make a spreadsheet that results in the same answers so you feel better about my source?

Retina display is not a 330ppi display. It is a marketing term used by Apple because the human eye cannot make out the pixels on a 3.5in screen with 330ppi from 12 inches away. A laptop with a 1920X1200 display from 2 feet away could be a retina display because you cannot makeout the pixels.

Do you have a HDTV? If you sit 12 inches in front of it, you will see pixels. If you sit 4 feet from it, you will not. Therefore, a retina display is a display in which your eye cannot make out individual pixels. Hence the name RETINA.

 

[gentlefury]

Retina display is not a 330ppi display. It is a marketing term used by Apple because the human eye cannot make out the pixels on a 3.5in screen with 330ppi from 12 inches away. A laptop with a 1920X1200 display from 2 feet away could be a retina display because you cannot makeout the pixels.

Do you have a HDTV? If you sit 12 inches in front of it, you will see pixels. If you sit 4 feet from it, you will not. Therefore, a retina display is a display in which your eye cannot make out individual pixels. Hence the name RETINA.

If any of you can provide I source I will gladly concede....so far I haven't seen one.

 

[pgiguere1]

If any of you can provide I source I will gladly concede....so far I haven't seen one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=I1edQuxclUs#t=2216s

 

[Jb07]

If any of you can provide I source I will gladly concede....so far I haven't seen one.

Take a look at this MacRumors article. If Apple put a 2880X1800 screen on a 15" MBP, it would only be 221ppi. But, this is still retina because the distance of the laptop from your eyes is greater than the distance of a phone from your eyes, so you cannot make out the pixels.

 

[gentlefury]

Take a look at this MacRumors article. If Apple put a 2880X1800 screen on a 15" MBP, it would only be 221ppi. But, this is still retina because the distance of the laptop from your eyes is greater than the distance of a phone from your eyes, so you cannot make out the pixels.

Actually it would not be a retina....still waiting for an official source describing the technology or term.

 

[Jb07]

Actually it would not be a retina....still waiting for an official source describing the technology or term.

Did you not read the title? It says retina display. You are obviously ignorant and you won't accept any proof that to be a retina display, the screen does not have to have 330ppi. Also, I do not need to provide you an official source. You can do that for yourself, instead of waiting for someone to show you. You must just want to start stuff...

 

[robotphood]

Regardless of what "retina" really means, why would apple use such a high resolution on a notebook when you wouldn't be able to distinguish the pixels on a much lower resolution (albeit higher than now) MBA? From what we've seen, they have already had trouble producing the displays for the next iPad. Spend more $, see lower yields, just to produce an excessive 330ppi display on a notebook? Doesn't make sense.

 

[gentlefury]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=I1edQuxclUs#t=2216s

The descriptors of Steve Jobs have nothing to do with technical fact.

He also said the iPad was Magical....mine hasn't spawned any bunnies or levitated.

----------

Regardless of what "retina" really means, why would apple use such a high resolution on a notebook when you wouldn't be able to distinguish the pixels on a much lower resolution (albeit higher than now) MBA? From what we've seen, they have already had trouble producing the displays for the next iPad. Spend more $, see lower yields, just to produce an excessive 330ppi display on a notebook? Doesn't make sense.

Why would the ability to distinguish pixel vary from device to device?? I have icons and text on my iPhone that is the same size on the screen as my MBA. 4x pixel depth makes it sharper...regardless of the entire screen size.

 

[gentlefury]

Did you not read the title? It says retina display. You are obviously ignorant and you won't accept any proof that to be a retina display, the screen does not have to have 330ppi. Also, I do not need to provide you an official source. You can do that for yourself, instead of waiting for someone to show you. You must just want to start stuff...

I suppose you have never debated a subject before. When debating, all that matters is fact. NOT conjecture. If you provide a factual source to back your claim, the debate is over. I concede. If not, then I am the only person providing viable evidence to back my claim.

If you are not familiar with the term White Papers...it is the technical write up an engineer provides to prove his technology or hypothesis of a potential technology. They are required in order to patent a technology, since you can't patent ideas or concepts without hard evidence to back that it could or should work in your prescribed fashion (even tho apple loves to believe you can!).

 

[robotphood]

Because you never have a notebook as close as you would have a phone as other people have mentioned. A 330ppi laptop screen would be excessive and not cost effective. And what about this rumored apple tv?

 

[gentlefury]

Because you never have a notebook as close as you would have a phone as other people have mentioned. A 330ppi laptop screen would be excessive and not cost effective. And what about this rumors apple tv?

Does anyone hold their phone up to their nose when they use it? If anything I would say I use my MBA closer than my phone. My phone is typically at waste height when I use it...my MBA is typically about half that distance. All excuses to hide the fact that nobody here really knows the truth about the situation.

 

[Jb07]

I suppose you have never debated a subject before. When debating, all that matters is fact. NOT conjecture. If you provide a factual source to back your claim, the debate is over. I concede. If not, then I am the only person providing viable evidence to back my claim.

If you are not familiar with the term White Papers...it is the technical write up an engineer provides to prove his technology or hypothesis of a potential technology. They are required in order to patent a technology, since you can't patent ideas or concepts without hard evidence to back that it could or should work in your prescribed fashion (even tho apple loves to believe you can!).

Don't assume I have never debated a subject before. When you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME.

Take a look at this picture on a desktop. Up close, you can see the pixels, but if you go back farther, you cannot. If your monitor is at 100ppi, at 2 feet you can probably see the pixels. If you double it to 200ppi, at 2 feet you will barely be able to make them out.

 

[gentlefury]

Don't assume I have never debated a subject before. When you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME. Image

Take a look at this picture on a desktop. Up close, you can see the pixels, but if you go back farther, you cannot. If your monitor is at 100ppi, at 2 feet you can probably see the pixels. If you double it to 200ppi, at 2 feet you will barely be able to make them out.

And yet, on my iPhone I can look at an image so close my eyes can no longer focus and I still can't see any pixels. Amazing what a higher pixel density can do!!

btw, when you say you can see pixels...do you mean the dotted lines? Because I can quite clearly see the dots from my desktop, I can clearly see them on my iPhone as well....I'm not really sure what your point is.

 

[Jb07]

And yet, on my iPhone I can look at an image so close my eyes can no longer focus and I still can't see any pixels. Amazing what a higher pixel density can do!!

Did I not say look at it on a desktop? I know the iPhone has a retina display....

 

[robotphood]

I rarely use my phone waist height (far sighted?) and I don't believe I'm out of the norm. In fact as I'm typing this sitting at a table my phone is about 10" from my face as is my girlfriend on her phone. If I were to use it like you do, I would be extending my arm almost completely out?

 

[Jb07]

I suppose you have never debated a subject before. When debating, all that matters is fact. NOT conjecture. If you provide a factual source to back your claim, the debate is over. I concede. If not, then I am the only person providing viable evidence to back my claim.

If you are not familiar with the term White Papers...it is the technical write up an engineer provides to prove his technology or hypothesis of a potential technology. They are required in order to patent a technology, since you can't patent ideas or concepts without hard evidence to back that it could or should work in your prescribed fashion (even tho apple loves to believe you can!).

You keep asking everyone to provide "White Papers", but you have yet to provide your own. So why don't you show everyone these magical white papers.

 

[gentlefury]

You keep asking everyone to provide "White Papers", but you have yet to provide your own. So why don't you show everyone these magical white papers.

Thats my exact point! I don't know where to find them...so I am providing the math that makes logical sense. If there is a white paper describing the technical definition of the term retina and it holds your argument then I will take it as fact..but until then I only have logic and math to stand behind...So I have provided facts for my argument...you have not.

 

[Onimusha370]

'I am the only person providing viable evidence to back my claim'

You have NO evidence for what you're saying. we've all shown you evidence that the PPI needed for a display to be deemed 'retina' changes depending on the viewing distance.
It's a fact, you only have to do a google search!

 

[gentlefury]

'I am the only person providing viable evidence to back my claim'

You have NO evidence for what you're saying. we've all shown you evidence that the PPI needed for a display to be deemed 'retina' changes depending on the viewing distance.
It's a fact, you only have to do a google search!

And where does that claim come from? Apple? Samsung? or some tech blog? If the answer is a tech blog it is not evidence. It is speculation and assumption on the part of the writer. No more substantial than quoting Jb07.

http://techland.time.com/2011/12/09/apple-vs-samsung-here-come-the-retina-display-tablets/

This is the closest I can come to anyone mentioning a retina display outside of apple marketing...and it is proposed to use a ~330 (since everyone is so anal about that point...but nothing else for some reason) ppi display. Which says to me that the iPhone resolution is not just the work of magical pixie dust and is in fact a standard that Samsung developed called Retina.

The useable area of that 11" tablet would be about 8" x 5" making it a 4:3 tablet with a slightly larger bezel than the iPad and a 330ppi screen density.