John C. Russ (2006). The Image Processing Handbook. CRC Press. ISBN 0-8493-7254-2. OCLC 156223054. "The upper limit (finest detail) visible with the human eye is about 50 cycles per degree, (Fifth Edition, 2007, Page 94)"
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.
Intel Looking Toward Retina Display PCs by 2013
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
John C. Russ (2006). The Image Processing Handbook. CRC Press. ISBN 0-8493-7254-2. OCLC 156223054. "The upper limit (finest detail) visible with the human eye is about 50 cycles per degree, (Fifth Edition, 2007, Page 94)"
If you zoom in on your Mac, images will become pixelated, and website layouts often become obscured (especially those with Flash elements, video etc).
Zooming on on the iPad or iPhone on a website looks fine because the image being displayed is probably below its native resolution. Things look much worse on a bigger display when images are stretched beyond their native resolution.
I think Apple must have put a lot of research into resolution independence and decided Hi-DPI was a better way to go. We were meant to get resolution independence with Leopard.
Apple throws Billions in their face and they better recognize who they ****in with and build the dam screens haha
The whole 'Retina' term is marketing bulljive. Sit far away enough from *any* screen and PRESTO! ITS RETINA DISPLAY!
'Retina' should mean; 300dpi, literally that many dots (or pixels) per inch at ANY distance, thereby truly being 'retina'
Its basically false advertising.
So a 30" Apple Cinema Display should be 7680x4320 so that it is 300dpi? Just so that when I am 5 inches away I see no pixels?
And man, a retina TV would be over 10,000 pixels wide. Just for the occasion when I stand six inches from it, I can marvel at the glorious detail. Too bad the movie has to come on a 50-bluray set to fit all the content.
Yes, Retina is a marketing term, but why should you set the definition to an arbitrary 300 dpi? If I hold my phone 1 inch from my face I can see pixels. So that means it has to be higher than 300 dpi. Why? Because our perception of detail is based on distance.
Why didn't anyone else point out this?
Sure, the iPad only has 2048 vertical, but it has 1536 in the other dimension. 3.68 Million pixels in Intel's definition of 10 inch retina, 3.15 Million pixels in Apple's... they're only 14% shy of it...
Being addicted to obtaining new inanimate objects frequently to give yourself a feeling of purpose or status is a dangerous thing.
Yes! Your motto reminds me of the New Yorker cartoon, years ago, showing the lady who said "having thrown out the Sunday Times, gives me a feeling of accomplishment!"
Yes! Your motto reminds me of the New Yorker cartoon, years ago, showing the lady who said "having thrown out the Sunday Times, gives me a feeling of accomplishment!"
Don't forget bandwidth limits!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
All this talk about super-high resolution screens is great, but what happens if/when web sites start using super-high res images??? Slower web loads, longer downloads, more bandwidth = we burn through our data plans for mobile, and we make a small dent in our home bandwidth limits as well.
And unless we drop the web and just use apps to connect with sites, where the developers can have more control over their UI, web sites are going to look really bad, especially sites where people upload content, etc. Older web sites that are not updated anymore will look awful, and you run into so many issues.
I don't know how this is going to work. If I have to triple the size of all the transparent PNG files I use on my sites, those are going get crazy really quick. You would eat up your 2GB data plan in a heart beat.
High-res stuff works best when it's the complete package, like an app. But the web is different. The web will instantly suck in high-res, and most sites will never look good again.
Furi0usBee
All this talk about super-high resolution screens is great, but what happens if/when web sites start using super-high res images??? Slower web loads, longer downloads, more bandwidth = we burn through our data plans for mobile, and we make a small dent in our home bandwidth limits as well.
And unless we drop the web and just use apps to connect with sites, where the developers can have more control over their UI, web sites are going to look really bad, especially sites where people upload content, etc. Older web sites that are not updated anymore will look awful, and you run into so many issues.
I don't know how this is going to work. If I have to triple the size of all the transparent PNG files I use on my sites, those are going get crazy really quick. You would eat up your 2GB data plan in a heart beat.
High-res stuff works best when it's the complete package, like an app. But the web is different. The web will instantly suck in high-res, and most sites will never look good again.
Furi0usBee
Here's hoping for a sub $500 24 inch IPS LED retina display with multitouch and a stand that supports height, pivot, tilt and swivel adjustments. Then $700 27", $1100 30" and $1600 36".
Then perhaps retina displays going up to 120" at 300ppi.
Seriously though I am more interested in reasonably priced desktop displays with multitouch ability than retina. Not with multitouch being a complete replacement to the keyboard and mouse but to augment them.
My biggest concern with retina is trying to play modern GPU intensive games at native resolution at high to max settings. I doubt the GeForce GTX 680 in SLI could drive a 24" at 220ppi with many games.
Note that if Apple did put "Retina Displays" in their Macs, then the CPU (Intel Ivy Bridge) would power the display, and GPU would power those intensive games (a new feature in Ivy Bridge).
You view things this close up regularly? Can't be good for your eyes mate!
Lol, nah, just disproving his wild generalization that 300ppi is always the limit.
Well, you don't measure human eye resolution in DPI. You don't even measure screen pixel density in DPI (you measure it in PPI instead) but this is less relevant.
The resolution of human eye (of person with 20/20 eyesight) is 0.6 arcminutes. This means that if an object takes up 0.6 arcminute it can be resolved by human (seen as single dot).
I just have got to toot my own horn:
https://twitter.com/#!/SheriefFarouk/status/183335551955509248
https://twitter.com/#!/SheriefFarouk/status/183336016319483904
(Yes, I know Kepler is mentioned but the display resolution has to be the lowest common denominator supported by both the integrated and discrete GPU for GPU switching to make sense)
https://twitter.com/#!/SheriefFarouk/status/183335551955509248
https://twitter.com/#!/SheriefFarouk/status/183336016319483904
(Yes, I know Kepler is mentioned but the display resolution has to be the lowest common denominator supported by both the integrated and discrete GPU for GPU switching to make sense)
You don't understand.
Mac OS is now resolution independent. When HiDPI screens are implemented the graphical elements, the UI buttons lists and text remain the same size but end up much sharper. Look at iPad 3 if you don't understand.
----------
I don't really think you understand the technology.
Mac OS is now resolution independent. When HiDPI screens are implemented the graphical elements, the UI buttons lists and text remain the same size but end up much sharper. Look at iPad 3 if you don't understand.
----------
I don't really think you understand the technology.
Try the new iPad.
With a Hi-DPI screen, image scaling becomes easier. And if resolution independence had taken off, websites would be using images supporting multiple pixel densities by now.
Don't confuse easier with better. Forcing fixed PPI on a screen is stupid. But Hi-DPI is at least better than Old-DPI.
Sorry, but I think it is you that don't understand the technology. Supporting two specific pixel densities does not make OS X resolution independent. It just makes it prettier at one specific physical size.
Last edited:
Does anyone else find it funny that the company that makes the worst graphics chips is trying to set standards for computer video?
I don't mind as long as they can live up to their own standards I just think it's a lot like someone who has killed a few million people while giving CPR trying to dictate how CPR should be given.
I don't mind as long as they can live up to their own standards I just think it's a lot like someone who has killed a few million people while giving CPR trying to dictate how CPR should be given.
I think people need to be educated here.
The point of resolution independence is that when a programmer writes code to draw a line x number of inches long it ends up being that long on a traditional display or a HiDPI display. The same goes for text. That is resolution independence as what you see is not tied to the pixel density of the screen. The operating system in effect uses as many pixels as needed to get the right dimensions on screen.
Resolution independence isn't about your tweaky need for more real estate. Rather the goal is to get more of that WSIWYG effect that Apple has been known for.
That is the whole point of resolution independence, the on screen UI features get drawn the same size no matter what your screen size. I can't understand why this is so damn difficult for people to grasp, yet we have already many posts in this thread indicating that people don't get it.
The point of resolution independence is that when a programmer writes code to draw a line x number of inches long it ends up being that long on a traditional display or a HiDPI display. The same goes for text. That is resolution independence as what you see is not tied to the pixel density of the screen. The operating system in effect uses as many pixels as needed to get the right dimensions on screen.
Resolution independence isn't about your tweaky need for more real estate. Rather the goal is to get more of that WSIWYG effect that Apple has been known for.
That is the whole point of resolution independence, the on screen UI features get drawn the same size no matter what your screen size. I can't understand why this is so damn difficult for people to grasp, yet we have already many posts in this thread indicating that people don't get it.
To all those hating on Apple in this thread. Think to yourself. Would the chances of hearing this news be high if Apple had not gone retina with their iPhone and iPad? Apple might not make the screens but they sure push the other companies to make them for Apple.
You cannot deny that Apple always sets standards these days whether they make the component or not.
After all Intel is calling it Retina like and guess who made up the term 'Retina' for use in HiDPI screens. Another standard set. Just like how we see iXXXXX on most stuff these days and very similar designs.
You cannot deny that Apple always sets standards these days whether they make the component or not.
After all Intel is calling it Retina like and guess who made up the term 'Retina' for use in HiDPI screens. Another standard set. Just like how we see iXXXXX on most stuff these days and very similar designs.
For the average person.
I have no doubt though that there are a few out there that can see a lot better than I can or the average person can.
Beyond that pixel density does have an impact on picture quality even if you can't resolve the pixels. A walk into any electronics store with large screen TV's can pretty much verify that. As screens get bigger they start to look washed out compared to smaller screens running the same media.
I have no doubt though that there are a few out there that can see a lot better than I can or the average person can.
Beyond that pixel density does have an impact on picture quality even if you can't resolve the pixels. A walk into any electronics store with large screen TV's can pretty much verify that. As screens get bigger they start to look washed out compared to smaller screens running the same media.
New Apple Products
Sorry guys but this is really random, but can I have some of your thoughts on what the Apple Television will look like and specs of what you think? Also, do you guys think any new categories will be created by Apple anytime soon? If so, what?
Sorry guys but this is really random, but can I have some of your thoughts on what the Apple Television will look like and specs of what you think? Also, do you guys think any new categories will be created by Apple anytime soon? If so, what?
Talking about HiDPI on the desktop means that my problem is going to be much more common in the very near future.
Funny that you should mention people not getting it.
Have a look at a couple of Macs with different screen sizes. You'll notice something very funny. The screen UI features are not the same size. They are the same number of pixels, but that does not translate to the same physical size.
HiDPI is just a way to describe a type of screen.
You will still get resolution independence from Mac OS. The Whole concept of resolution independence is that text, lines or what ever, ends up the same size no matter which screen you are driving. Apple isn't leaving resolution independence behind in any way.
Why even have references to HiDPI? Well it is pretty simple, Mac OS still will need to know what sort of screen it is drawing to. On IPad this is easy as the screen is built in and the resolution is known a that time of manufacture. Macs on the other hand have a choice of built in screens or external screens, and no good way of knowing how many DPI an external screen might have. So HiDPI is simply a way to identify a screen capability so that UI elements get drawn at the correct size.
You will still get resolution independence from Mac OS. The Whole concept of resolution independence is that text, lines or what ever, ends up the same size no matter which screen you are driving. Apple isn't leaving resolution independence behind in any way.
Why even have references to HiDPI? Well it is pretty simple, Mac OS still will need to know what sort of screen it is drawing to. On IPad this is easy as the screen is built in and the resolution is known a that time of manufacture. Macs on the other hand have a choice of built in screens or external screens, and no good way of knowing how many DPI an external screen might have. So HiDPI is simply a way to identify a screen capability so that UI elements get drawn at the correct size.
I think you might have misunderstood kilamite, wizard.
Kilamite said that he likes the size of things at a 1440x900 res' on a 15" screen. Having a 15" screen of 3840x2400 pixels, running in "pixel-doubled" mode, would mean that elements appear at a size as shown on a current 15" 1920x1200 screen, i.e. elements would be significantly smaller than what he prefers (based on 1440x900 pixels over 15"). That's why kilamite said that 2880x1800 would be nice pixel dimensions for a 15" screen, because THAT resolution in "pixel-doubled" mode would indeed keep things at his preferred size.
Ja?