Expert Says iPhone's 'Retina' Display Claim is False

[mr_tuel]

[citation][nom]dannyaa[/nom]Oh please. "Experts" meaning one dude with a PHD? He may very well be right. But "experts" as in the industry as a whole have been claiming 300ppi as the limit of the eye for a long time. That is an accepted standard. So it's more than fair for jobs to go by that.Then some renegade comes out and calls him a liar because he didn't go buy his own personal discovery? Hey, he could be write, but until his theory gets widely accepted and recognized as the industry standard he should probably lay off on the claims that others are full of BS because they don't rely on his personal theories.300 PPI is nothing new and has been the standards expertS (notice the plural) have been using for years.[/citation] Just because something is an industry standard does not make it correct.

 

[daedalus685]

[citation][nom]daedalus685[/nom]Though I must say that at 50CPD I only get 277 ppi... not sure if I missed anything...[/citation]

Scratch that.. it is more like 240... There are a lot of different quotes for the limit mind you... at any rate 50CPD is far closer to 300ppi at one foot than it is to 477.... :\

 

[daedalus685]

[citation][nom]daedalus685[/nom]Scratch that.. it is more like 240... There are a lot of different quotes for the limit mind you... at any rate 50CPD is far closer to 300ppi at one foot than it is to 477.... :\[/citation]

LoL, I forgot to double it since it is a line pair measurement... its a good thing I get paid to do optical physics for a living.. wow...

The good Dr is correct, the theoretical limit is 477.4ppi.

 

[restatement3dofted]

[citation][nom]gwolfman[/nom]LOL +1[/citation]

I heard there's a "thumbs up" button for that.

 

[Teen Geek]

[citation][nom]jojesa[/nom]It depends if you are an Apple (Jobs) fan, then the iPhone 4's display resolution exceeds the limit of that person's retina.Otherwise they will see that they've been taken.[/citation]
No they won't. The display isn't good enough.

 

[Guest]

The LEDs are not red, green, blue, OR yellow. They are white. The tv is an _LCD_ tv... the LEDs are for the backlighting.

 

[daedalus685]

[citation][nom]ClemH[/nom]The LEDs are not red, green, blue, OR yellow. They are white. The tv is an _LCD_ tv... the LEDs are for the backlighting.[/citation]

The same principal would apply to an LED display. Adding a primary yellow accomplishes very little. Though this is not to say we shouldn't expand on the adobe RGB... just that yellow might not be the best place to put it without also moving the RGB sub pixels to farther extremes. It will remain marketing pointlessness until someone redefines a new digitally encoded colour space.

Bear in mind that some LCD displays do have a RGB LED back light array as well.

 

[ooo]

Well Soneira was the scientific advisor for NASA in order to put the Hubble correctly functioning so he might now a few things about display and optics, his website is also displaymate.com and you can read about that there, he also says what could be the best possible construction in order to obtain the most precise colors in displays but no one have done that yet...cnet.com use his color tools in order to review the monitors and how precise they are with color reproduction.

http/www.displaymate.com/about.html

 

[Usersname]

....and all the predictable garbage throwing at Apple by morons who get conned into upgrading their CPU and GPU's every few months by companies who hype their products every bit as outlandishly as Apple. You're consumers. They all know how gullible you are. Now thumb this into oblivion and prove your stupidity to yourselves.

 

[Guest]

was it just me but when the word retina display was used i instantly thought apple was going shove some wetware into my eye sockets

 

[gregor]

....and all the predictable garbage throwing at Apple by morons who get conned into upgrading their CPU and GPU's every few months by companies who hype their products every bit as outlandishly as Apple. You're consumers. They all know how gullible you are. Now thumb this into oblivion and prove your stupidity to yourselves.

About every 4 years for me, last time was Jan 09 cost me £700ish for core i7 4870 etc. Checked the same spec only a couple of weeks ago on the dabs site for an apple machine, albeit with a xeon cpu, £1600....hmmm who's being conned??

 

[eeide]

If anyone did any research you will find that 0.6 arc minutes that is referenced in the original paper to calculate the pixels is assuming you have an eyesight higher then 20/20. For normal people the numbers that Steve Jobs quotes is correct. Too bad Toms Hardware didn't provide any of the actual numbers for anyone to check the math. Instead everyone jumps on board because it slams Apple. How ignorant is everyone to jump onboard the latest hype.

 

[christopherknapp]

[citation][nom]dannyaa[/nom]Oh please. "Experts" meaning one dude with a PHD? He may very well be right. But "experts" as in the industry as a whole have been claiming 300ppi as the limit of the eye for a long time. That is an accepted standard. So it's more than fair for jobs to go by that.Then some renegade comes out and calls him a liar because he didn't go buy his own personal discovery? Hey, he could be write, but until his theory gets widely accepted and recognized as the industry standard he should probably lay off on the claims that others are full of BS because they don't rely on his personal theories.300 PPI is nothing new and has been the standards expertS (notice the plural) have been using for years.[/citation]

Precisely. But one thing that you haven't accounted for is the amount of Apple hating wankers on this website that continue to thumbs dumb anything related to Apple products being decent.

Prove to me that the display is junk, please someone show me on paper and in practice that this is not one of the best displays on any phone ever. I am begging you facking wankers to come forward with FACTS not your stinking opinion.

 

[josh jones]

My ps2 had something called the emotion engine. ooooo... sounds really special.
lol
my HD tv is so awesome.. wait.... what does 1080p mean??.. 720p... umm... consumers are dumb and tech companies know better.

 

[TheKurrgan]

Perhaps it exceeds that of Jobs's retina, and since he is the master of the universe, everyone is less than him right? So what he says is gods word right?

 

[eeide]

Here is a more detailed analysis:
http/blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/10/resolving-the-iphone-resolution/

 

[alexander]

I'm not so sure about this theoretical physicist.

I'm a photographic pixelpeeper and camera measurbator so naturally technical image quality is very dear to me. However, I have recently come to the conclusion that the need for really high resolution is greatly exaggerated, simply due to the fact that your eyes just can't see all these small individual pixels, even if you look really closely. Even Steve's claim of 300 ppi is to high. According to our local photolab it's more like a bit over 200 ppi, and I doubt that I would even be able to see that good (and that would probably go for lots of other people to).

Try for yourself. Downsize an image to 1181x1772, which is equivalent to 10x15 cm (about 4x6 inches) at 300 dpi. Then look at the screen at 100% view and compare to the print. On a normal distance, can you really see the details on the print that is visible on a pixel level on screen at 100%? Can you even see it if you look to closely?

It might be 477 ppi "in theory" but as always it's something else in practice (something strictly theoretical people seem to be completely unaware of).

/Alex

 

[alexander]

Oh yes, you have to print the downsized image at your photolab, and THEN compare to the screen. Forgot to say that.

 

[mikepaul]

He offered an example, saying that Sharp's four-primary-color claim with the Quattron TV line is utter nonsense because all movie and television content is produced and color balanced using the traditional RGB. Although the fourth yellow primary is now included in the Quattron series, it will have nothing to do because yellow is created using mixtures of red and green primaries.

This doesn't sound right. The TV gets digital data and reassembles it into an image. If the reassembly on a Sharp uses a real yellow instead of a red/green combo, then so be it. Do some digital TVs get more specific information than others about HOW to build an image?...

 

[cadder]

"puffery" is a good term to apply to Jobs, but then we already knew that.

My Samsung Epix has slightly higher pixel density than the iphone3gs but it doesn't look as good because the screen is quite a bit smaller and also not as bright. I don't think there is a need for pixel density any higher than what the current iphone has, and with less pixel density it would put less strain on the processor.