Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

The iPhone Isn't Retina

lilo777 said:
That would be relevant if we were talking about those other aspects.
Click to expand...

Ah, so because certain silly facts don't help bolster your claim, it doesn't matter that that Droid DNA has lousy color reproduction and contrast and would produce a significantly poorer image overall? How convenient.

Besides, Gizmodo has not even had a real access to DNA yet (nobody had).
Click to expand...

Hmm, first sentence of that article makes it clear that Gizmodo's writers have actually had the device in their hands since yesterday morning. Which would make them better authorities on it than you are, in my opinion.

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

Actually, you seem to be discussing the HTC Droid DNA - something you can't even buy yet - more often than you discuss the iPhone. And when you DO mention the iPhone, it's to talk about how the Droid DNA is going to be so much better. Even though, as you point out, we don't have access to the hardware yet, so we can't really say for sure. :)
 
I have a hard time believing that article when so many people can't even tell the difference between watching a DVD and a Blu-ray.
 
...Or that they're watching a Standard Definition Channel with the wrong aspect ratio on their HD display, and thus assume it's HDTV...
 
My retinas must be defective (or just plain old) because the screen looks fantastic. And it's getting kudos worldwide, many saying it's the best display of any smart phone on the market. Why do Apple haters feel the need to post on Apple forums? I don't particularly care for Android phones (and I had one for 2 years before getting my iPhone 5) but I feel absolutely no compulsion to post negative tripe about them on forums devoted to Android enthusiasts.

To the OP (and the other poster following his/her lead), if you don't like the iPhone 5's display (or Apple itself) buy something that floats your boat. Then you can target forums that are specific to that type of phone and deride Apple products all you like.
 
Last edited:
lilo777 said:
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)
Click to expand...

You know what's funny?

When Apple coined the Retina marketing name, you were posting that the high pixel density wasn't needed, and was a waste. Now you are defending products that higher pixel density than the 330ppi of the iPhone 4 Retina display.
 
1. iPad mini is not retina
2. retina is not retina
Therefore, iPad mini is not iPad mini? Wait, I think I missed a negative: iPad mini IS iPad mini? Gosh, I hope it's the second one, or I wasted a lot of $$.

Regards,
Tom
 
That article has so much flaw and failed on so many fronts it's not even funny.

The human eyes and 300 DPI claim came from the desktop publishing world, where it's generally accepted that ANY image or artwork printed above 300 lines per inch in screen is considered "continuous," as in human eyes can no longer discern the screen dots that make up the image at that resolution. Go grab a print-out from your typical laser printer, and hold it 8-12" away from your eyes, and tell me if you can see ANY of the pixels that make up solid letters. You can't. It is actually generally accepted that human eyes can not discern anything above approximately 240 lines per inch screen when printed and viewed from a normal reading distance, therefore anything above that will be a complete waste.

Since display pixels are capable of generating image in a different way than traditional offset printing screens, it's an easy correlation to make that anything over 240 pixels per inch on a screen will also be impossible to detect as far as the edges of the pixels are concerned. So from a desktop publishing professional's stand point, retina displays are in fact high definition enough to reproduce images that are impossible to detect the edges of pixels just like a high-end printer.

When retina display technology was first defined, it was in fact referring to how the new iPhones and iPads' screens are equivalent or superior to PRINTED pages.
 
lilo777 said:
That's not true at all. This may happen but only when people watch both on a really crappy display/TV.
Click to expand...

My TV is a Pioneer Kuro KRP-500M with a 9.5 generation panel, unlocked for ISFccc modes, and calibrated. It is considered to be one of the very best TVs ever made, and I've tweaked it as far as it will go.

Maybe you have exceptionally high standards that exceed even that, but in no circumstances could my TV be considered "really crappy". :rolleyes:
 
Resolution depends on something called MTF or modulation transfer function. Meaning resolution depends upon contrast. The fact that this is not mentioned makes this argument misleading and false.

Or complain to your eye doctor that he only corrected your vision to 20-20!

330 pixels per inch or around 12 pixels per mm has been an industry standard going back to Kodak films 100 years ago.

Anal retentive article.
 
840quadra said:
You know what's funny?

When Apple coined the Retina marketing name, you were posting that the high pixel density wasn't needed, and was a waste. Now you are defending products that higher pixel density than the 330ppi of the iPhone 4 Retina display.
Click to expand...

Ha ha. That's pretty much his MO. Anything contrarian for the sake of hate.
 
onthecouchagain said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'd sure if I were you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back