Did Apple just define Retina Screen?

[jsolares]

The definition (can't you read? ) considers explicitly figures composed by lines and by no means as small as a pixel.

It's a 5x5 grid, not lines, what do pixels form? omg a grid!! who would've known...

I'm guessing you're the one that can't read

Oh, 20/20 is called "perfect vision" by definition. Don't you know?

There's no consensus on what perfect vision is. snellen regarded 20/20 as such, but there are people with better vision still.

Hint: I've obviously calculated both the visual angle for the iPad and the iPhone.
Guess what? As I stated in my previous post (can't you read? #2 ) the angle is superior to an arc minute.
Moreover, it's different between the iPad and the iPhone.

If you can't apply such an elementary calculation, that totally your problem.

I think you mean lower angle than an arc minute, both screens are higher ppi that would be needed for 12" (iPhone) or 15" (iPad 3rd gen) for someone with 20/20 to discern pixels.

Absolutely incorrect.
The visual angle doesn't match up with anything you can associate with 20/20 vision.
A technical specification is missing, and all you can tell is "uh no pixels wow".

Moreover, apparently you're just being really obtuse.

1 arc minute gives you the ppi needed for someone with 20/20 visions to discern the pixels, both screens are higher.

----------

Edit: LOL, are you serious? So you think "h" refers to the width or height of a pixel?

Oh boy.

Seriously?
Then i guess we're done here.

 

[LostSoul80]

It's a 5x5 grid, not lines, what do pixels form? omg a grid!! who would've known...

I'm guessing you're the one that can't read

A grid of symbols! LOL. Oh come on, this is getting ridiculous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optotype

Each symbol is composed by lines, just for you to know.

What, did you think a grid by itself was the means of measurement?

There's no consensus on what perfect vision is. snell regarded 20/20 as such, but there are people with better vision still.

It's a name. It's called "perfect vision". I talked about it in my previous post. Go read it.

I think you mean lower angle than an arc minute, both screens are higher ppi that would be needed for 12" (iPhone) or 15" (iPad 3rd gen) for someone with 20/20 to discern pixels.

1 arc minute gives you the ppi needed for someone with 20/20 visions to discern the pixels, both screens are higher.

Oh, boy, again.

Any screen can qualify as "Retina", as no one has mentioned anything about "when can't I distinguish between 2 dots" scientifically speaking (I want documentation to prove that), and certainly visual acuity doesn't relate.

Visual acuity is, as you said, not a universal law and moreover it doesn't apply to this kind of features.

 

[jsolares]

A grid of symbols! LOL. Oh come on, this is getting ridiculous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optotype

Each symbol is composed by lines, just for you to know.

What, did you think a grid by itself was the means of measurement?

Yes beacause the snellen test chart is obviously 5x5 symbols... oh wait.

*Sigh*, did you bother to read anything at all?

Each symbol is on a 5x5 grid

He based it on a 5x5 grid

Snellen defined “standard vision” as the ability to recognize one of his optotypes when it subtended 5 minutes of arc

Maybe this can get to you : http://www.oculist.net/downaton502/prof/ebook/duanes/pages/v5/ch051/013f.html

 

[LostSoul80]

Yes beacause the snellen test chart is obviously 5x5 symbols... oh wait.

*Sigh*, did you bother to read anything at all?

Each symbol is on a 5x5 grid




Maybe this can get to you : http://www.oculist.net/downaton502/prof/ebook/duanes/pages/v5/ch051/013f.html

That doesn't absolutely contradict what I said.
Those are lines, those symbols are based on lines, not on single tiny dots.
The examination also involves certain light condition, and obviously Snellen didn't even think about something not involving symbols (thus lines, not dots) drawn on paper.

You can't re-define what's "visual acuity" and how is it determined. It's not correct to apply a precise definition (which doesn't provide anything but a way to compare acuity). And above all you can't link that to a product assuring "you can't see the pixels", even though you're convinced of the opposite. And maybe you forget 20/20 is only called "perfect", but that's the "normal" threshold of acuity: legally 20/20 is "normal vision" (despite its name). People can have exactly the double of that - 20/10.

Notice that this vague assumption of what's a Retina display would, also, only describe a feature: like saying HDTV. Everyone has a HDTV, but HDTV is not a definition companies try to claim. Instead, if I say "that's a TFT-LCD IPS panel" I'm technically providing more-or-less precise characteristics, a type of technology I can link to a precise definition. If I say "that's a Sport game", then it's a wide genre of a more or less specific theme.

As I said, if you allow visual acuity to enter in the definition itself, any display can be Retina because it doesn't indicate virtually anything. It's also unprecise, because the human eye has a higher "resolution" .
Definitions of this type need to be accurate, precise and technical, and not just specs exaggerations for the mass to buy a product.

 

[jsolares]

Image

That doesn't absolutely contradict what I said.
Those are lines, those symbols are based on lines, not on single tiny dots.
The examination also involves certain light condition, and obviously Snellen didn't even think about something not involving symbols (thus lines, not dots) drawn on paper.

You can't re-define what's "visual acuity" and how is it determined. It's not correct to apply a precise definition (which doesn't provide anything but a way to compare acuity). And above all you can't link that to a product assuring "you can't see the pixels", even though you're convinced of the opposite. And maybe you forget 20/20 is only called "perfect", but that's the "normal" threshold of acuity: legally 20/20 is "normal vision" (despite its name). People can have exactly the double of that - 20/10.

Notice that this vague assumption of what's a Retina display would, also, only describe a feature: like saying HDTV. Everyone has a HDTV, but HDTV is not a definition companies try to claim. Instead, if I say "that's a TFT-LCD IPS panel" I'm technically providing more-or-less precise characteristics, a type of technology I can link to a precise definition. If I say "that's a Sport game", then it's a wide genre of a more or less specific theme.

As I said, if you allow visual acuity to enter in the definition itself, any display can be Retina because it doesn't indicate virtually anything. It's also unprecise, because the human eye has a higher "resolution" .
Definitions of this type need to be accurate, precise and technical, and not just specs exaggerations for the mass to buy a product.

Wow, just wow, next you're going to tell me that a row of pixels is not a line...

What width are those lines in the 20/20 part? 1 minute of arc, what's the width of the space between those lines? 1 minute of arc

I'm not redefining anything.

 

[LostSoul80]

Wow, just wow, next you're going to tell me that a row of pixels is not a line...

Are you serious? So you think pixels are not separated entities, but they compose continuous lines? So you think there could be any correlation between separated entities and continuos lines?

What width are those lines in the 20/20 part? 1 minute of arc, what's the width of the space between those lines? 1 minute of arc

I'm not redefining anything.

Resolving a dot and a series of lines is completely different, you miss the point of Snellen. A dot is a virtually adimensional entity, while a line is not.

Also, you seem to have missed my previous post.
20/20 is the "normal vision" despite its name – "perfect vision". And this defeats any point you could be up to support by itself. As I said people can even have 20/10.
So not only this doesn't match up with what you're trying to support, but demonstrates you're possibly not aware that the method of testing is not objective, rather it depends on the patient and its state.
P.S.: This means you can't base a definition of a screen on vision, never, because that's not objective, as a start.

 

[wharzhee]

they can define it anyhow they like, cause they were the one who came up with the term, retina display

 

[jsolares]

Are you serious? So you think pixels are not separated entities, but they compose continuous lines? So you think there could be any correlation between separated entities and continuos lines?

Take a grid of 5x5 and make each square in said grid 5mm to the side, now fill all 5 top grids, you just filled 5 separate entities and you ended up with a 5mmx25mm line.

What do you think a continuous entity is? do you realize there are no such things in the universe?

Resolving a dot and a series of lines is completely different, you miss the point of Snellen. A dot is a virtually adimensional entity, while a line is not.

The whole point of Snellen is that someone with 20/20 vision can resolve at 1 minute arc. resolving a dot and a line is not different in any way, if the dot is 1 minute of arc by one minute of arc a person with 20/20 can see it at 6 feet. how is a dot adimensional btw?

The definition apple made of the retina display is that a person with normal vision can't resolve the pixels on the display, as you just said normal vision is 20/20 and not 20/10, and the math proves the display of the iPhone4 and the new iPad both have a higher ppi than a person with normal vision at 12 and 15 inches can resolve.

The definition is objective.

 

[d0vr]

I was sleepy, my mistake

No worries, it seems you weren't the only one making the same mistake. (see below).

It is relevant in a sense that most HDTVs are retina displays already and therefore look as good as the iPad screen at normal viewing distance

A 50" 1080p HDTV is retina at 6 feet away.

Once again, I know that the right size HDTV's at the right distances are retina displays, and you know that. I was explaining that fact to someone else (see origin of above).

STOP DOWN VOTING ME PEOPLE!! I WAS EXPLAINING TO SOMEONE ELSE! Lol.

 

[Stetrain]

Some odd arguments in this thread.

Apple's definition of "Retina Display" is based on two things:

1) PPI of the display.
2) "Normal viewing distance" of the display

The idea being that the average eye has a certain resolution (measured in degrees), which can be mapped to a PPI at a given distance.

That's all there is to it.

Of course the human eye and eyesight is more complex and variable than that, but that's the metric Apple is using.

So an iPad 3 has a "Retina Display" according to Apple at about 15" from the eyes.

When the iPhone 4 was announced, Steve said that at 10-12" from the eye you needed 300 PPI to count as a "Retina Display"


So yes, a low PPI screen at a large distance also counts just as a high PPI screen at a close distance does.

A normal HDTV has a PPI of somewhere around 50, much less than an iPhone 4 or an iPad 3 but it can still count as a "Retina Display" under Apple's definition if you sit at the right distance.

Another example are the super huge displays they use in sports arenas. If you walked up close to one the pixels would be huge and have big gaps between them. When viewing them from across the stadium though it looks like a nice display.

 

[kdarling]

Apple always disclosed that their choice of definition for a "retina display" has always been related to the typical arclength of human visual acuity, and that the corresponding pixel density was necessarily dependent upon the distance the display was held away from the eye.

Yes. There were also plenty of threads and articles back when Apple came up with their new marketing term, explaining that it was dependent on PPI and distance.

However, many people paid little attention to the visual science behind the marketing term, instead fixating on an arbitrary PPI number because that's easier to think about.

If Apple had arbitrarily decided that the iPad was "intended" to be held 30 inches away from the eye, then they could have used a screen with an even lower ppi, and it still could have met their originally disclosed definition of a "retina display".

Yep, using Apple's terminology, the original iPad is retina at about 27" away.

The iPhone 4 was retina at 11". Many competing phones at the time were retina if held 12" to 12.5" away. Oooo. A difference of 1.5". Big deal.

Heck, one-inch square pixels can be retina at a football-field distance.

An approximate rule of thumb is to divide 3600 by the PPI. That gives you the retina distance in inches.

--

Whereas the so-called retina distance is calculated using 1 arc-minute, the eye has cones that can resolve down to 0.4 arc minute. The trouble is, the eye's lens and other optics are not perfect.

Still, if you have really good vision, good lighting, and a small pupil opening, then the distance required can jump. E.g. a retina display at 12" to normal people might require 18" for someone with excellent vision and conditions.

 

[MH01]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

They also said the rest of the world is getting LTE. Yes you need a basic level of common sense not to trust Apple marketing or for some of us long term apple fans, experience. Retina is just makerting, just be glad everyone is getting the same screen..... Or are we?!?!

 

[LostSoul80]

Take a grid of 5x5 and make each square in said grid 5mm to the side, now fill all 5 top grids, you just filled 5 separate entities and you ended up with a 5mmx25mm line.

That's hilariously incorrect, and I wonder how much obtuse you can become.
Three contiguous (read: not spaced ) squares form a segment line. They are absolutely not separate entities unless you cut them out, or divide them. Really, you don't get this? Contiguous squares compose a line.
Take your time to understand that.

What do you think a continuous entity is? do you realize there are no such things in the universe?

Continuous doesn't absolutely imply infinite and obviously we don't refer to atoms because we're into the range of the visible. So in your opinion no line segments exist speaking in terms of what we can see. Wow that's very smart of you.
Three contiguous squares compose a segment, which by its very definition is a single entity (which contains infinite points geometrically, but that's totally irrelevant in this case). Didn't you know a line segment is a part of line bounded by two points?

The whole point of Snellen is that someone with 20/20 vision can resolve at 1 minute arc. resolving a dot and a line is not different in any way, if the dot is 1 minute of arc by one minute of arc a person with 20/20 can see it at 6 feet.

No, Snellen specifies we must use symbols (called optotypes) composed by lines (the sum of contiguous squares), not points. Haven't you read it yet?
For the rest of the response you can refer to my 2 previous posts.

how is a dot adimensional btw?

I clearly said "virtually". This demonstrates you have a limited knowledge/understanding of geometry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_(geometry)
By very definition a point is something which has no dimension in the dimensional context it's considered.

Nothing of this applies to the definition of 20/20, which relies on lines.
You are free to re-define whatever you want, but that's useless and subjective.

The definition apple made of the retina display is that a person with normal vision can't resolve the pixels on the display, as you just said normal vision is 20/20 and not 20/10, and the math proves the display of the iPhone4 and the new iPad both have a higher ppi than a person with normal vision at 12 and 15 inches can resolve.

No, it does not because the definition of 20/20 doesn't consider points.
Also, please refer to some documentation and not to what a marketing man told at a company's event to announce a product, using a misleading term able to attract the masses.

The definition is objective.

The definition of Snellen is objective, I agree. That's a way we can compare, through subjective ways (examinations are not based by analysis but depend on the state of the patient), acuity.
That however doesn't absolutely grant everyone won't resolve the pixels. Even on an original iPhone one with poor vision could think it has a "Retina" display. This is exactly why such a definition can't be based on that but needs technical specifications.

 

[JUiCEJamie]

the iPad 2 already plays HD youtube videos.

There isn't an option, its automatic

Interesting. You think that YouTube will try to automatically play the new 4K resolution too?

 

[jsolares]

That's hilariously incorrect, and I wonder how much obtuse you can become.
Three contiguous (read: not spaced ) squares form a segment line. They are absolutely not separate entities unless you cut them out, or divide them. Really, you don't get this? Contiguous squares compose a line.
Take your time to understand that.

You're the one saying a line is made by contiguous squares, yet a row of pixels don't form a line? are there any lines in your computer display?

Continuous doesn't absolutely imply infinite and obviously we don't refer to atoms because we're into the range of the visible. So in your opinion no line segments exist speaking in terms of what we can see. Wow that's very smart of you.
Three contiguous squares compose a segment, which by its very definition is a single entity (which contains infinite points geometrically, but that's totally irrelevant in this case). Didn't you know a line segment is a part of line bounded by two points?

We're not talking about infinite either, but at least you do realize that at some level something continuous stops being so.

3 squares are 3 squares, i didn't define them as a single entity.

Define range of the visible, with pixels you can't see how are a row of pixels lit the same color not a line then, if you can't see the separation between the pixels, therefore they're a line, you just said at much.

But you said a row of pixels isn't a line, yet now you say they do...

No, Snellen specifies we must use symbols (called optotypes) composed by lines (the sum of contiguous squares), not points. Haven't you read it yet?
For the rest of the response you can refer to my 2 previous posts.

A line is just squares which are just points, you just said as much, in a 5 by 5 grid at that.

At a distance how is a 1mm by 1mm "square" any diferent from a "point"? and if you can't see the square, is it even there?

I clearly said "virtually". This demonstrates you have a limited knowledge/understanding of geometry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_(geometry)
By very definition a point is something which has no dimension in the dimensional context it's considered.

But we're not talking about euclid points are we? we're talking about actual pixels/points/squares/blobs that you might be able to see.

Nothing of this applies to the definition of 20/20, which relies on lines.
You are free to re-define whatever you want, but that's useless and subjective.

No, it does not because the definition of 20/20 doesn't consider points.
Also, please refer to some documentation and not to what a marketing man told at a company's event to announce a product, using a misleading term able to attract the masses.

Why do you keep saying they rely on lines? it relies on your eye being able to resolve to 1 minute of arc, so that everything is separated by 1 minute of arc, be it lines, squares, so that if you can resolve 1 minute of arc then you can tell what the pattern is.

How can you say the definition of 20/20 has nothing at all to do with 1 minute of arc?

Make a 5 by 5 grid the size of the 20/20 in snellens chart but instead color them like a chess board, at 30 feet people with bad vision will actually see a grey square and not the actual pattern.

The definition of Snellen is objective, I agree. That's a way we can compare, through subjective ways (examinations are not based by analysis but depend on the state of the patient), acuity.
That however doesn't absolutely grant everyone won't resolve the pixels. Even on an original iPhone one with poor vision could think it has a "Retina" display. This is exactly why such a definition can't be based on that but needs technical specifications.

So you're saying snellens definition is objective, however that any definition based on it isn't?

We're not talking about everyone, apple wasn't talking about everyone either.

 

[LostSoul80]

You're the one saying a line is made by contiguous squares, yet a row of pixels don't form a line? are there any lines in your computer display?

Wow.
If you fill three contiguous (this means: not spaced ) squares you'll form what can be associated with a segment line.
Pixels are not contiguous. How can you not understand this.
Draw a line on a paper and try to figure out where are the spaced points.
This is how Snellen thought about defining a scale of acuity.

3 squares are 3 squares, i didn't define them as a single entity.

Have you seen what is an optotype?
Do you know no grid is shown in an actual optotype?
Do you know that if you draw a rectangle it is a single entity?

Define range of the visible, with pixels you can't see how are a row of pixels lit the same color not a line then, if you can't see the separation between the pixels, therefore they're a line, you just said at much.

That has nothing to do with an optotype. An optotype is composed by lines, and acuity is determined based on one's ability to resolve those lines.

But you said a row of pixels isn't a line, yet now you say they do...

It is not. It becomes at a distance.

A line is just squares which are just points, you just said as much, in a 5 by 5 grid at that.

At a distance how is a 1mm by 1mm "square" any diferent from a "point"? and if you can't see the square, is it even there?

In a 5x5 grid squares are contiguous, so unlike pixels they compose a segment line (a rectangle if the height is relevant). You don't see spaced squares. Acuity means your ability to resolve continuous lines.

But we're not talking about euclid points are we? we're talking about actual pixels/points/squares/blobs that you might be able to see.

A "point" is anything with inappreciable dimensions with respect to the considered dimensional context. This definition applies to anything, in general.

Why do you keep saying they rely on lines? it relies on your eye being able to resolve to 1 minute of arc, so that everything is separated by 1 minute of arc, be it lines, squares, so that if you can resolve 1 minute of arc then you can tell what the pattern is.

That's where you fall.
Snellen's definition doesn't apply to anything, it applies only to optotypes which are composed by lines.
Acuity means ability to resolve lines and not see a symbol as a point.

How can you say the definition of 20/20 has nothing at all to do with 1 minute of arc?

Never said it. You said it.

Make a 5 by 5 grid the size of the 20/20 in snellens chart but instead color them like a chess board, at 30 feet people with bad vision will actually see a grey square and not the actual pattern.

Snellen's chart is black and white. It also doesn't consider any extraordinary light condition for the matter.

So you're saying snellens definition is objective, however that any definition based on it isn't?

Absolutely not.
You miss the point: Snellen's definition can not be applied to pixels, that's incorrect.
Also, Apple claims that you "can't see the pixels". How's that an objective definition of a screen?

 

[jsolares]

It is not. It becomes at a distance.

Exactly!!!

 

[LostSoul80]

Exactly!!!

No one is debating about that (noticed the smiley?).
The point is how unprecise and false is what a company claims about a display, and about the vagueness and above all lack of a real definition about what's obviously just a marketing term for the masses. Did you miss this?

 

[jsolares]

No one is debating about that (noticed the smiley?).
The point is how unprecise and false is what a company claims about a display, and about the vagueness and above all lack of a real definition about what's obviously just a marketing term for the masses. Did you miss this?

It's not imprecise nor false, they're telling you that most people won't see the pixels at all, and not even half of the US population has 20/20 vision, let alone better.

It is a marketing term, how else would they sell it.

It's still well defined.

 

[linkgx1]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

I'm just gonna leave this here: Apple is getting very contradictory. Then again they don't have a Nikon for a CEO anymore.

But remember all companies contradict their statements: they have to change because of time *cue inception time score*. Nintendo and online shenanigans, Sony and dildo controllers, etc. Apple has to stay alive and will do what they have to

 

[DeathChill]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

I'm just gonna leave this here: Apple is getting very contradictory.

The funny thing is that the exact quote from Steve Jobs was posted in here and it wasn't contradictary with what Apple said about the iPad's screen at all.

 

[LostSoul80]

It's not imprecise nor false, they're telling you that most people won't see the pixels at all, and not even half of the US population has 20/20 vision, let alone better.

It is a marketing term, how else would they sell it.

It's still well defined.

You seem to have missed what I wrote, but that doesn't surprise me seen your inability to oppose anything.
To quickly sum up: you can't apply the logic of 20/20 to pixels, and I've written also why. If you're unable to read or understand, that's your problem.

Also, to prove this is Apple itself: no documentation providing anything anywhere. They know they would better not deepen too much.

A "Retina" display is any given display: perhaps it's a quality and any screen can qualify as "Retina". It is not defined, and certainly you won't define it in any way. Only Apple can, and it hasn't.

 

[linkgx1]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

I'm just gonna leave this here: Apple is getting very contradictory.

The funny thing is that the exact quote from Steve Jobs was posted in here and it wasn't contradictary with what Apple said about the iPad's screen at all.

I guess. I was more or less directing this at fanboys.... Especially on discussions on super amoled plus. No biggie. I thought the iPad 2 was sharp enough anyway

 

[jsolares]

You seem to have missed what I wrote, but that doesn't surprise me seen your inability to oppose anything.
To quickly sum up: you can't apply the logic of 20/20 to pixels, and I've written also why. If you're unable to read or understand, that's your problem.

Also, to prove this is Apple itself: no documentation providing anything anywhere. They know they would better not deepen too much.

A "Retina" display is any given display: perhaps it's a quality and any screen can qualify as "Retina". It is not defined, and certainly you won't define it in any way. Only Apple can, and it hasn't.

1. I think you mean ability not inability. Perhaps so, i've been told i'm a contrarian, i don't go for the popular, i go for what i understand though

2. Do you have lines in your eyes? i have rods and cones. they're the ones responsible for what your brain interprets and in turn see.

Why do you think you can't apply 20/20 logic to pixels? you don't have lines in your eyes interpreting what you see, you have rods and cones, or maybe you do have lines .

Funny how the rods and cones in our eyes look like an LCD screen.

What more documentation do you need?

A "Retina" display as defined by apple is any given display where you can't see the pixels at the intended usage distance for it.

My 27" display is not a retina display just because if i sit 5 feet from it i won't notice pixels, it would be if sitting at 18-20" i couldn't see them at all. it wouldn't take that many more pixels though (damn astigmatism).

Heck i have a SGSII and i can't see its pixels with all of its 218ppi, i had to take off my glasses to be able to focus when putting it 5 inches in front, and then i could see the pixels.

I will be the first to tell apple to cram it if they go and change their definition though.

 

[linkgx1]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Speaking of astigmatism, I got contacts 4 the 1st time and found out I have it. Damn damn damn!