Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Help me understand this retina thing
- Thread starter sulpfiction
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Everyone keeps saying that Apple would either have to keep the same resolution or double the resolution. But couldn't they scale up the resolution by something else like 1.5x that way the scaling for developers won't be as much work (I think. Since I'm not a developer I cannot comment on how difficult it is to scale apps).
An interesting idea, but I think it would confuse the common folk as they would complain their screen isn't all being used. Remember, Apple likes to keep things simple so anyone can pick up an IOS device from my 2 year old cousin to my grandma.
An interesting idea, but I think it would confuse the common folk as they would complain their screen isn't all being used. Remember, Apple likes to keep things simple so anyone can pick up an IOS device from my 2 year old cousin to my grandma.
In that case you could "stretch" the app to full screen, and this could be used until devs create a higher res version of the game. The 1024*768 does seem like a good idea as thats the iPad res if I remember right, making it easier for versions to be easily adapted.
no, people would have a field day with this...
"magical..... when held 12.5+ inches away from your face"
it will also drop them to around the same PPI as some of the android handsets, in which case those manufacturers can start saying they have screens that match "retina" quality (if not the manufacturers then certainly review sites)
we have 3 options it seems:
- no 4" phone
- change of resolution
- change the meaning of "retina"
i don't see them changing the resolution again, and i dont see them changing their definition of "retina". i mean how often do apple even do this? if history has taught us anything it's that apple would rather spite themselves than go back on something they said, plus there is what i said above about high res android handsets. so i'd guess that a 4" screen isn't going to happen.
Haha! So, you hold a 3.5" screen proportionally closer to your face compared to a 4" screen?! Uhuh...
Ummm, neither the dimensional ratio or pixel ratio are anywhere close to the golden ratio...
Maybe not the "golde ratio" but IMO the "golden" display size. 3.5" is OUT! and I hate 4.5" mammouth displays. My wife has a Dinc2 with a 4" screen and the form factor is just perfect and beautiful!
Retina display is not a real thing, it's a made up term by Apple.
They could make the display 10px x 10px and still call it a Retina display and people would still believe it.
They could make the display 10px x 10px and still call it a Retina display and people would still believe it.
So? While it's not an industry term, that doesn't mean that it's not clearly defined, or lacking parallels in the display industry.
It's really simple; 20/20 vision is considered to resolve detail at about 1 arcminute in size. A display with a pixel size below this threshold is a Retina Display.
This was basically the same marketing campaign used for 1080p TV's a few years back. Do you remember those charts with viewing distance and display size showing the 'suboptimal' view distances for large 720p TV? That was based on essentially the same formula.
http://myhdtvchoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/hdtv-viewing-distance.png
Apple simply took the same chart and pushed it down to a 3.5 inch phone.
Reina is nothing but a marketing term.
ANY phone display can be marketed as "retina" by simply changing the viewing distance.
My phone has 960x640 275ppi 4" display and looks the same as my wife's iPhone 4 when I hold it at "my" normal reading distance (14" - 18").
The 3.5" screen is just one of the many reasons I left the iPhone.
Anything 12" from my face is too close.
ANY phone display can be marketed as "retina" by simply changing the viewing distance.
My phone has 960x640 275ppi 4" display and looks the same as my wife's iPhone 4 when I hold it at "my" normal reading distance (14" - 18").
The 3.5" screen is just one of the many reasons I left the iPhone.
Anything 12" from my face is too close.
I'd be willing to bet that subconsciously you do. even if it is by the slightest of margins.
It's a Marketing term, but one with a clear definition. You obviously understand the meaning of the term since you can correctly apply it to other devices.
If you want to call your phone RD quality for your usage pattern, go ahead. You could feel justified in doing so.
A 42" 1080p TV is also RD quality when viewed from the right distance.
They can say any display at all is "retina", as long as they also tell you the minimum optimal viewing distance.
A giant 20-foot display with 4ppi resolution is still a "retina" display, so long as you stand far enough away from it. If you hold the iPhone 4 2 centimetres away from your face as you use it, then it is not a "retina" display anymore.
The recommended viewing distance has always been a part of the specifications that Apple has used to define a "retina" display.
One again, there is NO definition of a retina display.
There is NO 300ppi limit for a retina
Apple has NOT set a 300ppi limit for retina.
Further details can be found here:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1201780/
In short, the combination of ppi and viewing distance defines retina. On a 3.5" display AT 12" FROM YOUR FACE, that number is 300ppi.
On a 4" display, which can be held further, the retina limit is probably around 250PPI. So a 4" screen with the same resolution is in fact RETINA.
There is NO 300ppi limit for a retina
Apple has NOT set a 300ppi limit for retina.
Further details can be found here:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1201780/
In short, the combination of ppi and viewing distance defines retina. On a 3.5" display AT 12" FROM YOUR FACE, that number is 300ppi.
On a 4" display, which can be held further, the retina limit is probably around 250PPI. So a 4" screen with the same resolution is in fact RETINA.
Totally agreed, on all points.
I hope you were not trying to correct me, because I don't think anything I said is an any way in conflict with anything you said.
But there is a definition. 20/20 vision is considered to resolve detail at about 1 arcminute in size. A Retina Display has a pixel size below this threshold during normal use.
The constant in the RD 'spec' is 1 arcminute.
Retina display is an Apple marketing term. I was argueing that that term is not defined by hard PPI limits.