Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'iPad' started by Yr Blues, Nov 22, 2011.
Is there any product that uses a 264 PPI screen?
Good enough for what?
Good enough for "retina quality" given the distance the iPad is usually viewed at.
technically anything is "retina" at a certain distance. I believe that once you pass the ~320 mark, no matter how close you are to the display (literally the eye can be touching the display) it is not possible to see the pixels.
I don't care if it is or isn't retina. That's a damn good display in my book. I'm still happy with the first display.
I will definitely be happy with doubled pixels. My question only concerns retina quality given the distance most users hold the iPad.
It doesn't bother me now. I don't know, I hold it about 2 feet away when browsing the internetz. I'm not worried about it ever being "retina" quality anyway. Sure, on the phone it's great because I can now read tiny words without have to zoom in to make them clear. But the iPad is big enough to not have that problem. I see it being more beneficial for games, movies, and photos. My browsing experience and reading experience probably wouldn't change that much.
That resolution is actually 4X the pixel of current resolution. How much higher do you want? It's already quite challenging to produce that resolution displays.
No, there are EVFs (electronic viewfinders) with much higher PPI. Those being designed to work within an inch of the eye.
Its incredibly hard for an eye to focus at 1 inch mark. That isn't practical. 300ppi seems to be the spot on number.
That's why EVFs usually have optics in front of the display to allow for much closer focusing.
Incidentally the closest distance which the human eye can naturally focus is about 3". Depending on age.
This will be great for all sorts of applications.
First of all, even the casual viewer will see sharper text and more quality images. Beyond that consider photographers viewing high resolution pictures, spread sheets displaying more cells, engineering and scientific charts showing more detail. All sorts of 2d and 3d data charts will benefit from this.
SEM and TEM images will look spectacular on this display. 2k is at the high end for most SEM images. TEM images are very often acquired at higher resolution. Still, with zoom and pan this will be a great way to view those images and to show others what you have found.
If you read Tufte's books on display of quantitative information one of the themes that comes across is that more resolution is always better. The human eye/brain can comprehend very high resolution images and charts quickly. Rather than show a series of slides spread out in time it is far more effective to put the information in one display and let the observer spend time absorbing that.
Guys, all EVFs suck in real usage, the optical viewfinder is still the king in the game.
2048 x 1536 will be awesome for pictures. Unfortunately, that will bring a need of a larger storage, so that I guess my next iPad 3 will have at least 32 GB of memory. Even now with 16GB I have to constantly swap music for videos/pictures and delete apps I don't use too often.
That would have been absolutely true a few years ago. When EVFs were very low resolution. However EVFs have come a long way since then. The ones offered for Sony's NX line and Olympus's micro4:3 line are amazing. While optical still has some advantages, it's not as clear cut anymore.
Well I certainly hope it's good enough since it's pushing the limits of what can be mass produced right now.
Given that 1024x768 is good enough already I'd say double that is also good enough .. Thee comes a point where it's all just Extra for extras sake, I for one find the Samsung galaxy SIIs larger screen substantially better than the iPhone 4/4S retina display, despite the lower resolution.
I'm also the person that sees no difference between a film being upscaled from DVD vs a blue ray, and I would say I'm probably in the majority, HD is nice, but there is a point when most people stop seeing or noticing the difference anymore., if your one of the people that either can notice, or fool yourself into thinking you can notice, then chances are it will never be "good enough" because new "better" tech is on the way after this is released.
I think you need your eyes tested if you cannot tell the difference between upscaled DVD and Bluray. I'd say you are in the minority rather than the majority because of this.
Something Apple groks is that if you make the specs good enough, specs don't matter any more. Telling a user the tablet's display is 1024x768 is an attempt to convince them it's "good enough"; yeah something could be "better", users can make out pixels, but the customer accepts the limitation. There is however a difference when the specifications exceeds human perception: specs no longer matter. 2048x1536? who cares what the numbers are? it's beyond anything perceptible in normal use! It's no longer a matter of "that's good enough", it's that "it can't get any better" (in terms of human perception). Same reason why Apple is moving away from releasing technical details about iPads and other devices: the intent is that the products are so good that customers shouldn't care about specs - they just work.
Your eye has an angular resolution, not a linear resolution. That means that its ability to resolve an object really depends on the ratio of the object's size to its distance from you. Apple's definition of a "retina display" is 300dpi, 12 inches away. At this distance, the ratio of the size of the pixels to their distance from your eye is small enough that you can't see the pixels any more. If you moved the iPhone closer to your eye then that ratio would decrease, until the pixels became visible.
If a 300dpi screen held 12 inches away is a retina display, then by some elementary mathematics, a 250dpi screen held 14.5 inches away is also a retina display.
I'm wondering what he's viewing on.
The term "retina display" really is all marketing. They probably picked it because it sounded cool . Really resolution isn't the only method of defining a good display, and just packing in more without a good reason simply taxes the hardware for very little perceived benefit. There are plenty of ways to improve them further without it just being an issue of packing in more pixels. I wish we could get closer to that kind of pixel density in larger displays. A typical 24" display is still only 1900x1200.
While I don't agree that the difference can't be seen, I have long been in the camp of feeling that HD isn't that big a deal. Simply put, it seems to me that while the step up from SD to HD amounts to a 100%+ improvement in resolution, it really only amounts to about a 5% improvement in enjoyment of the story. To me, the importance of higher resolution is dramatically reduced with video vs. with still pictures.
Well, that's my thought, anyway...
How big is your TV? On my 110" screen and 1080p projector, viewed from 7 feet away, DVD is practically unwatchable. At 1080p, things look pretty good, but I need 4k resolution if I want things really sharp (will make it closer to a retina display)
Question is - how well will Infinity Blade play at that resolution?
LOL I think this is actually the more relevant question. When rumors started about a "Retina" iPad, I didn't think they were likely to be true. I'm excited that they're making one, but I think the thing that really matters is whether or not the hardware can drive game graphics, etc at that resolution.
Precisely. When I got my Dell PC 5 years ago I got my very first 30" monitor at 2560x1600. It took two 8800GTX Ultra cards in SLI to drive that puppy properly. If Apple can drive 2048x1536 in an iPad form factor without any noticeable lag and keep a decent battery life, I will be very, very, very impressed.