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

[exfileme]

Apparently the iPhone 4's "retina display" is mere marketing puffery.

Expert Says iPhone's 'Retina' Display Claim is False : Read more

 

[Guest]

we already knew Jobs was full of shit. this is just another piece that confirms that common knowledge.

 

[ethanolson]

Any display is a "retina" display from the right distance.

 

[gncs91]

not surprised!

 

[dman3k]

Tomorrow, we'll hear about how Raymond Soneira had his doors kicked in by REACT.

 

[mlopinto2k1]

[citation][nom]njkid3[/nom]we already knew Jobs was full of shit. this is just another piece that confirms that common knowledge.[/citation]Yeah but, who ELSE is full of it that you swear by? Just because you don't like Job's doesn't meant everyone else plays by the rules. In fact, didn't they just say that? Marketing gimmicks. If anything, I would have to say Steve Jobs is closer to the truth than anyone else that bloats their specs.

 

[Pei-chen]

I want to know what the 40 Princeton PH.D. that was hired by Sharp have to say.

This reminds me of the proof that the lying professor at Southern Illinois University given on ABC news about Toyota brakes.

 

[gwolfman]

[citation][nom]dman3k[/nom]Tomorrow, we'll hear about how Raymond Soneira had his doors kicked in by REACT.[/citation]LOL +1

 

[dannyaa]

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.

 

[vinehoyle]

it maybe industry proof that Jobs quoted but it's still done to sell u got it...iphones, in this case a phone that basically isn't as good as it needs to be. But because Jobs said it, peeps will believe it. This just isn't the phone you need. It's still 3G, and when the phone companies upgrade to 4G across the nation, u'll be stuck buying iphone umm 4.5?? LOL give me a break!!

 

[michaelahess]

Wait, Jobs lied? NO WAY!

 

[Ramar]

This reminds me of the FPS debate. If the eye can only see 30 fps [give or take] why does 100 fps look so much more fluid than even 60?

 

[gskwared]

I tend to believe the guy that has a PH.D. in theoretical physics from Princeton than a toolbag that had a PH.D. in turtleneck's

 

[jojesa]

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.

 

[joebob2000]

[citation][nom]Ramar[/nom]This reminds me of the FPS debate. If the eye can only see 30 fps [give or take] why does 100 fps look so much more fluid than even 60?[/citation]

Because of how your display chooses to display it. Again, measuring eyes in terms of computer displays is almost pointless because the human eye does not have a fixed FPS. Instead, it gathers light and that light falls off at a given interval which allows you to see certain things that strobe if they are slow enough, or it's just a solid light if they are fast enough. Tube TVs for instance have always strobed, yet no one ever complained about "flickering" TVs (for like 60 years!) because the content was designed to accommodate this and the eye simply smooths out the strobes. Along come computers and all of a sudden anal types are whining about seeing flicker and seeing low FPS and all this nonsense. What you are seeing is the nuance between what your computer wants you to see, what your monitor is capable of displaying, and what your eye picks up in its analog process. If these factors aren't all accounted for, you will 'see' crap. If the program generates a solid 60fps and your display is synced up properly, you will have a hard time finding anything that 'looks' any better. The same setup at 30fps will also look nearly perfect, and how often do you hear people complaining about the flicker of the 'low FPS' of movies (at a pathetic 24fps)? No? That's because the process perfectly accommodates the slow rate and your eye sees what it is supposed to.

 

[Fokissed]

[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]
300 PPI is 'Retina' display if you are 2 feet away (or so), but no one uses an iPhone at arms length when they are dealing with graphics (photos, movies, etc.)

 

[daedalus685]

[citation][nom]pei-chen[/nom]I want to know what the 40 Princeton PH.D. that was hired by Sharp have to say.This reminds me of the proof that the lying professor at Southern Illinois University given on ABC news about Toyota brakes.[/citation]

Primary yellow used in the Sharp display happens to be irrelevantly close being already contained within the Adobe RBG colour space. Even if all 4 primaries were used in a proprietary colour space the gamut would not be appreciably larger. The issue is that since all digital images are encoded in RGB the extra colour does absolutely nothing. Only if it were used on a proprietary image would it make any difference at all. It is all marketing mumbo jumbo.

Dr Soneira may go a bit over the top more often than not but he is factually correct on almost everything he says. Of particular interest to everyone should be the claim of response time in an LCD which is often mis represented by a factor of 10.

Though I must say that at 50CPD I only get 277 ppi... not sure if I missed anything...

 

[darkwingz24]

[citation][nom]Ramar[/nom]This reminds me of the FPS debate. If the eye can only see 30 fps [give or take] why does 100 fps look so much more fluid than even 60?[/citation]

24FPS is the threshold where a series of still images looks like motion, not the limit of the eye. So the more FPS the more fluid it looks. That is not to to be confused with the eyes ability to see flicker which is 50-60Hz. Thats why movies in the theatre are filmed at 24FPS (for motion) but the projector shows each frame twice at 48Hz to eliminate flicker.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

'Retina' display is blatant marketing pomp but a comment from a guy from a company that makes software that checks alignment in displays (basically looks like a bunch of commonly available free test screens shoved into a software package that costs $$$) smacks more of the company trying to get traffic to their site to flog their stuff than anything else.

From personal experience I can say that theoretical physicists often rely more on theory than reality when reality should always take dominance imo. I've heard of people who have used this display saying that they can't make out individual pixels, that sounds like pretty decent reality to me.

A similar thing goes for the fourth colour LED in those Sharp displays. In theory a plain RGB LED array should be able to reproduce all yellows just fine. In practice, however, different luminosity profiles for different bulbs means that the possible spectrum isn't necessarily perfect. In which case, an extra yellow LED could reproduce yellows more accurately. It makes sense since yellow is a very common colour in real life (and the Simpsons). Saying that the signal that comes along is only RGB so only RGB is needed is nonsense too. An RGB display cannot necessarily display 100% of the colours given by that RGB signal due to bulb limitations.

To put this stuff into speak that may be clearer to the PC masses on here: A hard line theorist would say something like "a graphics card capable of more GFLOPS will have better performance than one with less". Whereas we all know that it's never that simple.

 

[Pyroflea]

I figured it was BS. It's fairly easy to detect BS though these days, if "Steve Jobs" is mentioned, you can be fairly sure it is