The point is that the image on the left looks worse than the one on the right because it is sharper and so each pixel of the image is a sharp square-edged shape formed from four screen pixels.
No, you're conflating a whole pile of different issues and arguing against yourself. The post you're quoting was in reference to someone claiming that a retina display made images
blurrier. Exactly the opposite is true, as you spent more than one post arguing. Images are manifestly
sharpened by tighter pixel pitch. I'm not interested in your subjective feelings about which is "worse" given the choice between higher clarity and greater blur.
They do not look identical, and I just can't understand why people insist on arguing that they do, when we've been able to compare iPhone retina/non-retina displays for nearly two years now...
No one is saying that they look identical as an end result, just that they
are identical in alignment, proportion, and level of information per unit of space, among other objective metrics. There are always minor differences present from display to display.
That's the point many of you are ignoring. The slight blur or pixellation evident on some images at some zoom levels is something that every display can and does replicate. The improvement of most elements surrounding it may call greater attention to it, but that is not the same thing as creating a problem. It's just lowering the threshold.
Can I muddy the waters a bit by mentioning that every single image design tool on the planet will save out web-ready images at 72dpi unless you specifically change it?
You're not muddying the waters at all. That's been a key point in the discussion, albeit one that a number of people here can't seem to grasp.
The problems with targeting displays you outline far outweigh the negligible benefits provided by doing the work, and most websites just aren't going to do it. It's not fundamentally an issue or a step backwards or
worse, no matter how many times the handwringers jump up and down.
Not being able to grasp the fundamental science of it, they're left with nothing but repeated appeals to some undefined quality they're not willing to confront. The inescapable reality is that improving nine things and leaving the tenth as is does not equate to making the tenth thing worse.
It comes down to this.
IF the images on the screen are at a greater native size than their physical size on their screen (aka, ratio of image's natural size to image's size on screen > 1), they will be rendered at a higher DPI than iPad 1.
IF the images on the screen are at an equal or smaller native size than their physical size on their screen (aka, ratio of image's natural size to image's size on screen <= 1), they will be rendered at an iPad 1 level DPI or worse.
Yes, although you can drop the iPad from the equation entirely, as that applies to any display on the web.
The problem identified in this thread is a result of imperfect scaling by people looking at elements at different physical scales and refusing to face the fatal error of that approach, along with a peanut gallery of posters who flip their arguments to the opposite of their previous claims and contribute nothing.
I think folks here are confusing the terms "blurry" and "pixelated".
Non-retina images on the iPad will not be blurry. They will be pixelated - they scale precisely.
Yes. You're going to get a wholly authentic reproduction on a retina display. All the cheats and imperfections are more easily inspected, and low dpi artwork won't stand up to very much zooming.
It will, however, continue to be serviceable and of equivalent quality to the same scale on non-retina devices. There's already a clear image showing this, and there will be even more photos to demonstrate it tomorrow.
