The iPhone Isn't Retina

[onthecouchagain]

In fact, as it turns out, nothing is yet a Retina display. Not scientifically, anyway:

http://www.cultofmac.com/173702/why-retina-isnt-enough-feature/

"Steve Jobs said that the human eye, viewing a display from 12 inches away, can’t discern individual pixels if the density is over 300 pixels per inch. Except that this “magic” number is wrong. The real number is closer to nine hundred pixels per inch.

Apple’s definition of Retina is based upon the vision of seniors."

Apple marketing, for the win.

 

[BaldiMac]

Apple invented and defined the term "retina display". The fact that the iPhone display meets that definition means that it's a retina display.

That said, the human eye can absolutely perceive much higher pixel densities.

 

[zbarvian]

So 900 PPI is Retina? That's ridiculous, we won't have the battery or processing power to support those displays for many years.

I can't distinguish pixels on my iPhone 5, and I'm fine with that.

 

[BFizzzle]

like the above said..they coined the term retina display.. so they can define it as they please..

This is like all the George Lucas people telling him what star wars should be.




i guess i have senior vision too at 24 years old. my iphones resolution looks smooth as ****

 

[scaredpoet]

In fact, as it turns out, nothing is yet a Retina display. Not scientifically, anyway:

http://www.cultofmac.com/173702/why-retina-isnt-enough-feature/

Wow, I never knew cult of mac hired actual vision neuroscientists that could make authoritative claims about human vision!

Oh wait, they haven't. The article says "most science" disagrees with Apple on human vision, but doesn't list a single research article. It mentions Raymond Soneira, but his findings are widely disputed, and pretty much panned as being too mired in semantics.

It's also ironic that Soneira's own company has listed the iPhone 5 as the "best phone display" they've seen.

Meanwhile, actual vision neuroscientists and other real scientists have concluded that the marketing or these displays as "Retina" are pretty much adequately truthful.

But let's get down to brass tacks here. Have YOU looked a retina display? Can YOU discern the pixels from normal viewing distances? Are there any other manufacturers that have done a better job than Apple in this regard?

If your answer to any of the above questions is "no," then I fail to see the point of this thread.

 

[moargolems]

No way.

 

[lilo777]

Apple invented and defined the term "retina display". The fact that the iPhone display meets that definition means that it's a retina display.

That said, the human eye can absolutely perceive much higher pixel densities.

That would make sense if they invented a term, say, "mumu display". "Retina" obviously has very specific meaning which Apple actually confirmed in their PR materials. So, the use of retina in the context of iDevices is indeed misleading.

 

[BaldiMac]

That would make sense if they invented a term, say, "mumu display". "Retina" obviously has very specific meaning which Apple actually confirmed in their PR materials. So, the use of retina in the context of iDevices is indeed misleading.

You can spin it however you like, but it doesn't change the facts.

 

[BFizzzle]

Wow, I never knew cult of mac hired actual vision neuroscientists that could make authoritative claims about human vision!

Oh wait, they haven't. The article says "most science" disagrees with Apple on human vision, but doesn't list a single research article. It mentions Raymond Soneira, but his findings are widely disputed, and pretty much panned as being too mired in semantics.

It's also ironic that Soneira's own company has listed the iPhone 5 as the "best phone display" they've seen.

Meanwhile, actual vision neuroscientists and other real scientists have concluded that the marketing or these displays as "Retina" are pretty much adequately truthful.

But let's get down to brass tacks here. Have YOU looked a retina display? Can YOU discern the pixels from normal viewing distances? Are there any other manufacturers that have done a better job than Apple in this regard?

If your answer to any of the above questions is "no," then I fail to see the point of this thread.

hit em with some knowledge

 

[lilo777]

Wow, I never knew cult of mac hired actual vision neuroscientists that could make authoritative claims about human vision!

Oh wait, they haven't. The article says "most science" disagrees with Apple on human vision, but doesn't list a single research article. It mentions Raymond Soniera, but his findings are widely disputed, and pretty much panned as being too mired in semantics.

Meanwhile, actual vision neuroscientists and other real scientists have concluded that the marketing or these displays as "Retina" are pretty much adequately truthful.

But let's get down to brass tacks here. Have YOU looked a retina display? Can YOU discern the pixels from normal viewing distances? Are there any other manufacturers that have done a better job than Apple in this regard?

If your answer to any of the above questions is "no," then I fail to see the point of this thread.

Your assumption that if one can not see individual pixel the display is "retina" is false. The eye may not see individual pixels but it can (and does) still see the improvements in picture quality. I guess, we'll soon have two different terms: Apple's Retina Displays (TM) and real retinal displays (like HTC Droid DNA)

----------

You can spin it however you like, but it doesn't change the facts.

I am not spinning anything, Apple does - with their "retina", "magical", "revolutionary" and "thinnest in the World" (they are not) phones.

 

[moargolems]

"retina", "magical", "revolutionary"

Retimagionary.

 

[tymaster50]

Can you see each individual pixel? No? Okay then. Nobody cares lol.

 

[onthecouchagain]

I actually agree with a lot of all your points. Screens look great now.

 

[lilo777]

Can you see each individual pixel? No? Okay then. Nobody cares lol.

Wrong question. Can you see which display has the better picture? Yes, we can. Just compare the pictures on iPhone and HTC Droid DNA.

 

[BaldiMac]

Your assumption that if one can not see individual pixel the display is "retina" is false. The eye may not see individual pixels but it can (and does) still see the improvements in picture quality. I guess, we'll soon have two different terms: Apple's Retina Displays (TM) and real retinal displays (like HTC Droid DNA)

----------



I am not spinning anything, Apple does - with their "retina", "magical", "revolutionary" and "thinnest in the World" (they are not) phones.

Of course, you're spinning it. Apple defined the term "retina display". You can't just change the definition to whatever you want it to be and then claim that they are wrong.

 

[scaredpoet]

Your assumption that if one can not see individual pixel the display is "retina" is false.

Uhh, Your assumption that I made any such assumption is false. But, there's plenty of actual researchers who have made a conclusion to this effect, not merely an assumption. And I deferred to their judgement, since they tend to know more about these things that you or I.

The eye may not see individual pixels but it can (and does) still see the improvements in picture quality. I guess, we'll soon have two different terms: Apple's Retina Displays (TM) and real retinal displays (like HTC Droid DNA)

Going by the OP's article, if HTC were to market this as "true Retina" they too, would be misleading.

And going by your own assertions that picture quality is important and noticeable, Gizmodo disagrees with you that the Droid DNA excels in that regard. While PPI is high, all of the other factors that make a good display (color accuracy, contrast, brightness) are severely lacking. Those are huge sacrifices to make, just to be able to brag that more pixels have been packed in.

"The HTC Droid DNA isn't a bad screen by any means. But it's the banner feature on this phone, and it's a step backward; it still lags behind the HTC One X and iPhone 5. Which seems like a wasted opportunity in a major way."

 

[BaldiMac]

Wrong question. Can you see which display has the better picture? Yes, we can. Just compare the pictures on iPhone and HTC Droid DNA.

How is it the wrong question? That's how Apple defined "retina display"!

 

[tymaster50]

Wrong question. Can you see which display has the better picture? Yes, we can. Just compare the pictures on iPhone and HTC Droid DNA.

it's just a screen, we can all sit around and look at the screen trying to spot a pixel forever and we won't. The people that actually researched this should be doing something a little more important than figuring out how many pixels the eye can see.

 

[Troneas]

Apple invented and defined the term "retina display". The fact that the iPhone display meets that definition means that it's a retina display.

That said, the human eye can absolutely perceive much higher pixel densities.

ugh what?


the OP is precisely stating that the "definition" of the term "retina display" that apple gave to it is inaccurate in scientific terms, if not misleading.


yes the iphone5 is retina display according to apple's claim but it contradicts the definition they themselves gave to it. following your line of thought we can all then come up with fancy words and give them the definition that suits us regardless if its true or not.

 

[Applejuiced]

Your assumption that if one can not see individual pixel the display is "retina" is false. The eye may not see individual pixels but it can (and does) still see the improvements in picture quality. I guess, we'll soon have two different terms: Apple's Retina Displays (TM) and real retinal displays (like HTC Droid DNA)

----------



I am not spinning anything, Apple does - with their "retina", "magical", "revolutionary" and "thinnest in the World" (they are not) phones.

Wow, the hate
What are you even doing here at an iphone forum then?
Go find the Android site that you belong to.

 

[lilo777]

Uhh, Your assumption that I made any such assumption is false. But, there's plenty of actual researchers who have made a conclusion to this effect, not merely an assumption. And I deferred to their judgement, since they tend to know more about these things that you or I.



Going by the OP's article, if HTC were to market this as "true Retina" they too, would be misleading.

And going by your own assertions that picture quality is important and noticeable, Gizmodo disagrees with you that the Droid DNA excels in that regard. While PPI is high, all of the other factors that make a good display (color accuracy, contrast, brightness) are severely lacking. Those are huge sacrifices to make, just to be able to brag that more pixels have been packed in.

"The HTC Droid DNA isn't a bad screen by any means. But it's the banner feature on this phone, and it's a step backward; it still lags behind the HTC One X and iPhone 5. Which seems like a wasted opportunity in a major way."

That would be relevant if we were talking about those other aspects. Of course they are important. And there will be other high resolution displays with better color reproduction and contrast. Besides, Gizmodo has not even had a real access to DNA yet (nobody had).

----------

Wow, the hate
What are you even doing here at an iphone forum then?
Go find the Android site that you belong to.

Here, on iPhone forums, I am discussing iPhones. Weird, right?

 

[BaldiMac]

ugh what?


the OP is precisely stating that the "definition" of the term "retina display" that apple gave to it is inaccurate in scientific terms, if not misleading.


yes the iphone5 is retina display according to apple's definition but following your line of thought we can all then come up with fancy words and give them the definition that suits us regardless if its true or not.

How can it be an inaccurate definition if they invented the term? That's like a parent naming their newborn son "Fred" and you claiming that they are wrong.

The article itself is careful to differentiate between a "retina display" and a new term they invented called "true retina". Apple never claimed that a retina display was the limit of human perception.

 

[Zarkizon]

I can see the pixels on the iPhone 4 display; of course, I have to hold it one to two inches away from my face to focus on them—but I can see them easily with white-on-black text. It's a very subtle grid—it's more noticeable on curved icons and text because there's a very slight "jagged" edge.

I usually hold my iPhone about 8-12 inches away from my face, and at that distance I can't distinguish the pixels at all.

 

[Applejuiced]

[/COLOR]

Here, on iPhone forums, I am discussing iPhones. Weird, right?

Discussing how much you hate iphones or Apple is kinda weird if you ask me.
But whatever makes you happy and gets your anger and frustration out I guess
Still think you would fit better in an android forum

 

[peeaanuut]

they are also not made with apples either. Damn you for making me think they were delicious!!!!!!

Of course its marketing. I cant imagine anyone with a brain that though that the retina in the eye and retina display were the same.