Looking at the iPad's Retina Display Under a Microscope

[cyprod]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]Furthermore - the 'Retina' term itself, while maybe copyrighted by Apple, is not a marketing 'ploy' because it is backed up by scientific understanding. For example, in the print industry, 300 ppi is regarded as the quality required for the detail to look perfect.So, the word 'retina' may be Apple specific, but the underlying scientific reality was not anything created by Apple.That they use their high resolution to market their devices is something I don't see any reason to have a problem with.[/citation]
Yes, it is a marketing ploy. To be a true retina resolution, that means it has to be the same resolution as my eye, at any distance. Until they have the pixels so small that I can hold it so close to me eye that it is literally touching my it, and at that distance, it still matches my eyes resolution, it isn't a retina display, it's a marketing term.

 

[icemunk]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]We're trying to have a scientific discussion about what Retina means. We're not having an argument about OLED vs LCD. Brightness and colours are not relevant to this discussion which is about resolution.OLED vs LCD is a different argument. For me personally, I prefer the higher DPI of the iPhone screen. I also like the fact that, unlike OLED, it looks just as good if you look at it from an angle. This is a widely documented drawback of OLED. In terms of brightness and colour, having looked at them both side by side I see no difference.You probably just prefer the screen size. Either way - this discussion isn't about which screen looks the best. It's about what Retina means.[/citation]


You sound like a person who has little experience outside his Iphone and Apple products.. that is unfortunate, I believe you are caught up in the marketing of Apple and confusing it with science. It's tough to be a truly critical thinker when you are a fan boy unfortunately... hopefully you'll realize this in time. Good luck.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]icemunk[/nom]You sound like a person who has little experience outside his Iphone and Apple products.. that is unfortunate, I believe you are caught up in the marketing of Apple and confusing it with science. It's tough to be a truly critical thinker when you are a fan boy unfortunately... hopefully you'll realize this in time. Good luck.[/citation]

Why would you say this? Just because I am aware of the scientific basis of a companies claims when you clearly aren't, doesn't make me a fanboy. Feel free to browse the link I provided evidencing the science behind the claim.

What you just posted, is an unfortunately weak argument from you which addressed nothing I'd said, simply trying to imply I'm biased because I have some knowledge of science.

If anything, that blind 'oh he must be a fanboy attitude' makes you the fanboy.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]cyprod[/nom]Yes, it is a marketing ploy. To be a true retina resolution, that means it has to be the same resolution as my eye, at any distance. Until they have the pixels so small that I can hold it so close to me eye that it is literally touching my it, and at that distance, it still matches my eyes resolution, it isn't a retina display, it's a marketing term.[/citation]

You need to look up what retina display means. It has never had anything to do with the 'pixels' in your eye.

 

[shaod]

Of course it has 316 ppi "strictly speaking" - ppi being simply the number of pixels it has per inch. That's ignoring that PenTile actually looks (subjectively) better than a regular display of the same resolution, while using less power because it has few subpixels.

And sorry but 'retina display' is a marketing term. Like you point out it is completely subjective upon other factors such as where the screen is held and how good the eyesight of the user is.

 

[icemunk]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]Why would you say this? Just because I am aware of the scientific basis of a companies claims when you clearly aren't, doesn't make me a fanboy. Feel free to browse the link I provided evidencing the science behind the claim.What you just posted, is an unfortunately weak argument from you which addressed nothing I'd said, simply trying to imply I'm biased because I have some knowledge of science.If anything, that blind 'oh he must be a fanboy attitude' makes you the fanboy.[/citation]



I'm not going to argue about what a "Retina" display is, because that is a marketing device which Apple holds copyright. If you would like to argue facts, than I will present them to you:

OLED is a superior display. Lower power, higher clairty, better viewing angles, true blacks and superior contrasts, higher resolutions, more advanced, higher quality, vibrant colors. LCD does not compare, even if you make up some marketing term about "Retina" display. OLED wins hands down, no matter how you spin it. And just so you know.. Apple won't be using LCD in their next Iphone, Samsung will make them a nice OLED display for it instead.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]shaod[/nom]Of course it has 316 ppi "strictly speaking" - ppi being simply the number of pixels it has per inch. That's ignoring that PenTile actually looks (subjectively) better than a regular display of the same resolution, while using less power because it has few subpixels.And sorry but 'retina display' is a marketing term. Like you point out it is completely subjective upon other factors such as where the screen is held and how good the eyesight of the user is.[/citation]


1 - Retina display being a 'marketing term' is obvious, and I've already stated that. It ISN'T a 'ploy' because it has a base in scientific knowledge. There's a difference.

2 - Pentile does not subjectively look better at the 'same' resolution at all. Please find comparison here:

The Pentile is on the left and there is clearly more pixellation:

When you look very closely at a Super AMOLED screen, you can see the effect of the PenTile screen. Some colors look almost grainy, or dare we say pixilated. This is more noticeable with warmer colors. Things can look speckled, and text a little more blurry.

http/www.tested.com/news/news/articles/1868-pentile-vs-real-stripe-amoled-displays-whats-different/2/

3 - PPI can be measured using two different definitions. The Wikipedia notice is there for a reason:

Device uses PenTile technology. Its pixels consist of only two sub-pixels instead of three and the claimed pixel density is only achieved using subpixel rendering. In any case, the ppi numbers are not directly comparable.

http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_density

Thus, the claims of PPI on Pentile devices are arguably incorrect.

An early controversy regarding the definition or measurement of resolution of color subpixelated flat panel displays in general, and for subpixel rendered displays in particular, led many people to question the resolution claims of PenTile display products.[14] One school holds that resolution is defined by the number of red, green, and blue subpixels, in groups of three, in an array in each axis

The developers of PenTile displays use this VESA criterion for contrast of line pairs to calculate the resolutions claimed.[16] However, for the same resolution and size the PenTile screen can appear grainy, pixelated, speckled, with blurred text on some saturated colors and backgrounds when compared to RGB stripe color.[17] This effect is understood to be caused by the restriction of the number of subpixels that may participate in the image reconstruction when the color is fully saturated

http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PenTile_matrix_family

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]icemunk[/nom]I'm not going to argue about what a "Retina" display is, because that is a marketing device which Apple holds copyright. If you would like to argue facts, than I will present them to you: OLED is a superior display. Lower power, higher clairty, better viewing angles, true blacks and superior contrasts, higher resolutions, more advanced, higher quality, vibrant colors. LCD does not compare, even if you make up some marketing term about "Retina" display. OLED wins hands down, no matter how you spin it. And just so you know.. Apple won't be using LCD in their next Iphone, Samsung will make them a nice OLED display for it instead.[/citation]

Did you miss the part where it was explained to you that this discussion about retina has nothing to do with the OLED vs LCD debate? I guess so.

To compare screens is completely subjective, and your musings on it are therefore irrelevant.

Even if it was scientifically true that OLED is 'superior', it would not be at all relevant to what we're talking about. You should realise that first of all.

If you do want to have an irrelevant and unrelated discussion about OLED vs LCD, please be specific about which implementations in which devices, since whether a screen is good or not depends on a lot more than the quality of the technology used. For example, resolution. This also covers your unfounded assertion that Apple will use OLED in their next phone, since the reason I gave for my personal preference to you was the DPI (ie resolution / size). Of course, since you seem so outraged by my personal opinion my opinion that you are, in fact, the fan boy - is backed up. As did your subjective rant on OLED.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]shaod[/nom]Like you point out it is completely subjective upon other factors such as where the screen is held and how good the eyesight of the user is.[/citation]

Also - there is nothing subjective about retina display.

It is based on 20/20 eyesight, or the eyesight of the average person, and the distance an average user holds their device. These both have accurate and specific values and are not subjective.

If people try to inaccurately guess them, that is subjective - but that is not what the term means. If it were subjective, you would be able to claim any device was 'retina'. But you can't because it would depend on an invalid premise - such as the average user holding the device further away than they actually do. You should really look at this article:

http/www.tuaw.com/2012/03/01/retina-display-macs-ipads-and-hidpi-doing-the-math/

 

[icemunk]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]Did you miss the part where it was explained to you that this discussion about retina has nothing to do with the OLED vs LCD debate? I guess so.To compare screens is completely subjective, and your musings on it are therefore irrelevant.Even if it was scientifically true that OLED is 'superior', it would not be at all relevant to what we're talking about. You should realise that first of all.If you do want to have an irrelevant and unrelated discussion about OLED vs LCD, please be specific about which implementations in which devices, since whether a screen is good or not depends on a lot more than the quality of the technology used. For example, resolution. This also covers your unfounded assertion that Apple will use OLED in their next phone, since the reason I gave for my personal preference to you was the DPI (ie resolution / size). Of course, since you seem so outraged by my personal opinion my opinion that you are, in fact, the fan boy - is backed up. As did your subjective rant on OLED.[/citation]

Fact of the matter is Apple displays are nice, and set a good benchmark, however they have been surpassed by newer technologies and better resolutions on many fronts. Most new super phones surpass 300ppi using LCD, OLED, and LED technologies.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]icemunk[/nom]Fact of the matter is Apple displays are nice, and set a good benchmark, however they have been surpassed by newer technologies and better resolutions on many fronts. Most new super phones surpass 300ppi using LCD, OLED, and LED technologies.[/citation]

If they surpass 300 ppi then they qualify for the 'Retina display' label (from a scientific standpoint, assuming they are smartphones).

 

[ojas]

@watcha
"Retina display" is a marketing thing. No one else uses it, and to be honest i haven't even heard the term before apple started going on about it.
And if you think about it, the eye doesn't even use pixels.

Anyway, since you guys are referencing Wikipedia so much:

This claim has been disputed. Raymond Soneira, president of DisplayMate Technologies, said in an interview with Wired magazine, that the claims by Jobs are something of an exaggeration: "It is reasonably close to being a perfect display, but Steve pushed it a little too far". Soneira stated that the resolution of the human retina is higher than claimed by Apple, working out to 477 ppi at 12 inches (305 mm) from the eyes, or 36 arcseconds per pixel.

 

[shaod]

You are clearly not a scientist nor qualified to talk about what makes a measure scientifically accurate. I actually searched around for articles on this just incase I was mistaken, but it seems as I suspected there are none.

There are many Internet blogs both supporting and denying Apple's claim. I've read many, and linking one written by someone who makes their living writing about Apple products is hardly convincing. Nor is Wikipedia fyi.

Should you have such an article I am genuinely interested in seeing it, as this topic is somewhat of a joke within our research group.

 

[icemunk]

lol [citation][nom]shaod[/nom]You are clearly not a scientist nor qualified to talk about what makes a measure scientifically accurate. I actually searched around for articles on this just incase I was mistaken, but it seems as I suspected there are none.There are many Internet blogs both supporting and denying Apple's claim. I've read many, and linking one written by someone who makes their living writing about Apple products is hardly convincing. Nor is Wikipedia fyi.Should you have such an article I am genuinely interested in seeing it, as this topic is somewhat of a joke within our research group.[/citation]

lol yup, Watcha is unforuntetly lacking in real knowledge, and lost in the vast marketing machine produced by Apple. He reads his "science" from websites such as http/www.tuaw.com which talks about nothing but Apple.. I feel for people like him, they don't realize they are being manipulated by marketing.

 

[bystander]

Frankly, I find it a little ridiculous at the resolution of this screen. I'd rather have the extra battery life and if you use it for games, they are probably going to have to use it at half the resolution for performance reasons.

2550x1600 on a 30" is about as crisp as i can see. Why do we need that on a 9.7" screen?

I won't refuse the added resolution, but I'm not sure there is much reason to spend extra money for it either.

 

[bystander]

Maybe I just need to see them side by side. It still seems a little excessive.

 

[lukasm]

Just wanted to quickly chime in and point out that the PenTile RGBG screens are not comparable to regular OLED or LCD screens at the same resolution, because they "cheat" by only having two subpixels per pixel (as you can easily see in the microscopic images). This means that they effectively only have half the resolution of a regular screen when displaying certain things (like a red line, for example - only every other pixel has a red subpixel). Even for things like white areas, they are problematic, because they effectively can't display (for example) a single white pixel without using subpixels from a neighboring pixel.

If you have a device with a PenTile RGBG screen and you like it, that's great. But you should be aware that these are screens that unfortunately make some really bad tradeoffs. Qualitatively, they're not comparable to to a display with three subpixel per pixel. They're meant for consumer-grade devices, and their nominal specs (mainly their resolution) do not represent their real-world performance.

 

[lukasm]

Just wanted to quickly chime in and point out that the PenTile RGBG screens are not comparable to regular OLED or LCD screens at the same resolution, because they "cheat" by only having two subpixels per pixel (as you can easily see in the microscopic images). This means that they effectively only have half the resolution of a regular screen when displaying certain things (like a red line, for example - only every other pixel has a red subpixel). Even for things like white areas, they are problematic, because they effectively can't display (for example) a single white pixel without using subpixels from a neighboring pixel.

If you have a device with a PenTile RGBG screen and you like it, that's great. But you should be aware that these are screens that unfortunately make some really bad tradeoffs. Qualitatively, they're not comparable to to a display with three subpixel per pixel. They're meant for consumer-grade devices, and their nominal specs (mainly their resolution) do not represent their real-world performance.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]ojas[/nom]@watcha"Retina display" is a marketing thing. No one else uses it, and to be honest i haven't even heard the term before apple started going on about it.And if you think about it, the eye doesn't even use pixels.Anyway, since you guys are referencing Wikipedia so much:[/citation]

As has been said, several times. 'Retina' as a label didn't exist before, and is a marketing label. But the calculation of how to work out what PPI something would need so people couldn't see the pixels has existed long before, and so the science really does exist.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]shaod[/nom]You are clearly not a scientist nor qualified to talk about what makes a measure scientifically accurate. I actually searched around for articles on this just incase I was mistaken, but it seems as I suspected there are none.There are many Internet blogs both supporting and denying Apple's claim. I've read many, and linking one written by someone who makes their living writing about Apple products is hardly convincing. Nor is Wikipedia fyi.Should you have such an article I am genuinely interested in seeing it, as this topic is somewhat of a joke within our research group.[/citation]

How ironic you accuse me of not being scientific, when you have no idea at all on my background, or what I have a degree and a doctorate in. Not very scientific of you, wouldn't you say?

A link which is linked from the article I posted:

http/www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/25/retina_display_claims_upheld/

The basic thing you need to understand is that 1 arcminute, (1/60th of a degree) is the WIDELY ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC angle at which a person with 20/20 (average vision) can discern, with the human eye.

Since this is an angle, the resolution which is necessary to have pixels separated by less than this angle varies by distance. Given any one distance, this means scientists can calculate the necessary DPI.

If we consider a device which is held 12 inches away. Extrapolate the 1 arcminute angle over 12 inches and you get a 0.00349066 inches (to 8 dp).

A one inch device would therefore need 1/0.00349066 PPI which is 286.48 (to 2 dp)