Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

prometheus.med.utah.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 68 posts

Re: Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

#31

Post by gojomo »

masklinn wrote: post #28
watmough wrote: post #4

Having queued for 7 hours yesterday to get my iPhone 4, I can confirm that the display actually exceeded my expectations. All natively rendered text in controls, etc., looks like it was printed in a magazine. This display is going to be huge news once it hits the iPad and MacBook Pros.

> This display is going to be huge news once it hits the iPad and MacBook Pros. Which is probably never. Those don't even reach the pixel density of the 2G/3G/3GS. 326ppi? That's already going to be pretty tall order on a 10" screen (the iPad currently stands at 132 ppi, assuming the form factor doesn't change we're talking about increasing the resolution by a factor of 2.5, pumping the resolution to an insane 2560x1…

Never is a mighty long time!

Both handhelds and desktops have been increasing in resolution, and decreasing in cost, for years. There's no reason for that trend to stop until all displays reach 'retinal indifference' at their usual viewing distance. I would not be surprised to see 4000x3000 LCDs in laptops in the next decade.

Re: Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

#32

Post by yan »

masklinn wrote: post #28
watmough wrote: post #4

Having queued for 7 hours yesterday to get my iPhone 4, I can confirm that the display actually exceeded my expectations. All natively rendered text in controls, etc., looks like it was printed in a magazine. This display is going to be huge news once it hits the iPad and MacBook Pros.

> This display is going to be huge news once it hits the iPad and MacBook Pros. Which is probably never. Those don't even reach the pixel density of the 2G/3G/3GS. 326ppi? That's already going to be pretty tall order on a 10" screen (the iPad currently stands at 132 ppi, assuming the form factor doesn't change we're talking about increasing the resolution by a factor of 2.5, pumping the resolution to an insane 2560x1…

As far as computer-related predictions go that start with 'never', I'd love to save this and refer you to it in 1, 3 or 5 years.

Re: Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

#33

Post by masklinn »

gojomo wrote: post #31
masklinn wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This display is going to be huge news once it hits the iPad and MacBook Pros. Which is probably never. Those don't even reach the pixel density of the 2G/3G/3GS. 326ppi? That's already going to be pretty tall order on a 10" screen (the iPad currently stands at 132 ppi, assuming the form factor doesn't change we're talking about increasing the resolution by a factor of 2.5, pumping the resolution to an insane 2560x1…

Never is a mighty long time! Both handhelds and desktops have been increasing in resolution, and decreasing in cost, for years. There's no reason for that trend to stop until all displays reach 'retinal indifference' at their usual viewing distance. I would not be surprised to see 4000x3000 LCDs in laptops in the next decade.

> Both handhelds and desktops have been increasing in resolution, and decreasing in cost, for years.

That's not entirely correct. 24" at 1920x1200 and 30" at 2560x1600 is something that's been there for years, and these days laptops are regressing rather than progressing: in 2005 I had colleagues with 15" laptops in 1920x1200, these days the majority seems to be 16/9 screens in stupid resolutions (1366x768 seems really common these days in entry-level laptops)

> Never is a mighty long time!

My never stands for the Macbooks, and probably the iPad as well. By the time we reach the ability to create such densities with acceptable yields on panes bigger than 10 inches, the current names will long have been retired.

Re: Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

#34

Post by masklinn »

grinich wrote: post #30
masklinn wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This display is going to be huge news once it hits the iPad and MacBook Pros. Which is probably never. Those don't even reach the pixel density of the 2G/3G/3GS. 326ppi? That's already going to be pretty tall order on a 10" screen (the iPad currently stands at 132 ppi, assuming the form factor doesn't change we're talking about increasing the resolution by a factor of 2.5, pumping the resolution to an insane 2560x1…

People not that long ago believed that heavier-than-air flight was impossible. Never is a very long time. Is it really impossible that large high-DPI screens will exist in 5-10 years?

> Never is a very long time. Is it really impossible that large high-DPI screens will exist in 5-10 years?

I'm not quite saying that.

I'm saying the birth of those screens is so far away the current brands will very likely have been replaced a long time ago. Those densities on > 10"displays are pie in the sky dreams right now.

Re: Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

#35

Post by bmalicoat »

masklinn wrote: post #28
watmough wrote: post #4

Having queued for 7 hours yesterday to get my iPhone 4, I can confirm that the display actually exceeded my expectations. All natively rendered text in controls, etc., looks like it was printed in a magazine. This display is going to be huge news once it hits the iPad and MacBook Pros.

> This display is going to be huge news once it hits the iPad and MacBook Pros. Which is probably never. Those don't even reach the pixel density of the 2G/3G/3GS. 326ppi? That's already going to be pretty tall order on a 10" screen (the iPad currently stands at 132 ppi, assuming the form factor doesn't change we're talking about increasing the resolution by a factor of 2.5, pumping the resolution to an insane 2560x1…

It doesn't have to be 326ppi to be huge news. You probably hold the iPad another 12 inches further away from your eyes than the iPhone, so a smaller, more manageable bump in ppi could mean the same 'retina' result.

Re: Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

#36

Post by whyenot »

masklinn wrote: post #28
watmough wrote: post #4

Having queued for 7 hours yesterday to get my iPhone 4, I can confirm that the display actually exceeded my expectations. All natively rendered text in controls, etc., looks like it was printed in a magazine. This display is going to be huge news once it hits the iPad and MacBook Pros.

> This display is going to be huge news once it hits the iPad and MacBook Pros. Which is probably never. Those don't even reach the pixel density of the 2G/3G/3GS. 326ppi? That's already going to be pretty tall order on a 10" screen (the iPad currently stands at 132 ppi, assuming the form factor doesn't change we're talking about increasing the resolution by a factor of 2.5, pumping the resolution to an insane 2560x1…

30 years ago, you were lucky if you had a 300 bps acoustic modem. 20 years ago 9600 bps was considered state of the art. I am writing this while sitting in Peets in Los Altos where I have a 54,000,000 bps wireless connection, not to some local BBS, but to this much larger, almost unimaginably (at least it would have been to me in 1980!) complex structure, the internet.

In 1995, the little point and shoot camera I owned could fit 36 pictures on a roll of film. My new little Sony point and shoot has an 8gb memory card. It can fit 1,500 pictures on a "roll of film," and the memory card is so small I could balance it on the tip of a finger. It also takes better quality pictures than any 35mm camera I have ever owned, has an internal GPS, and an an impressive amount of computing power, at least when it comes to image processing.

We are living in truly amazing times. Never say never :)

Re: Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

#37

Post by matthavener »

whyenot wrote: post #36
masklinn wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This display is going to be huge news once it hits the iPad and MacBook Pros. Which is probably never. Those don't even reach the pixel density of the 2G/3G/3GS. 326ppi? That's already going to be pretty tall order on a 10" screen (the iPad currently stands at 132 ppi, assuming the form factor doesn't change we're talking about increasing the resolution by a factor of 2.5, pumping the resolution to an insane 2560x1…

30 years ago, you were lucky if you had a 300 bps acoustic modem. 20 years ago 9600 bps was considered state of the art. I am writing this while sitting in Peets in Los Altos where I have a 54,000,000 bps wireless connection, not to some local BBS, but to this much larger, almost unimaginably (at least it would have been to me in 1980!) complex structure, the internet. In 1995, the little point and shoot camera I own…

Meanwhile, the xerox lisa had a DPI of 90, while a regular macbook has a DPI of 110.

http://www.mprove.de/diplom/text/3.1.8_lisa.html http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html

Re: Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

#38

Post by ZeroGravitas »

Groxx wrote: post #22
borisk wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about '180 degree viewing angle', 'Quadrupling the resolution on the screen would only increase the clarity at most only three to five percent' and 'the Retina Display is too power-hungry, which drains the battery up to 30% faster than you’d find on their Super AMOLED screens' https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=...

Yes, lets all take a competitor's word at face value. And that clarity quote is complete bull, just look at a 3G and a 4G side by side. I like AMOLED screens, but the article is worthless. How would one calculate clarity? It seems it would be a subjective measurement... maybe they're looking at the phones from 10 feet away?

I've not read that particular link but Samsung have made that only 5% better claim comparing the Retina screen to their slighly lower DPI Super-AMOLED screens. While it seems common to compare it only to the previous iPhone screens, they were no longer state of the art even before the new iPhone.

Re: Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

#39

Post by whyenot »

matthavener wrote: post #37
whyenot wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

30 years ago, you were lucky if you had a 300 bps acoustic modem. 20 years ago 9600 bps was considered state of the art. I am writing this while sitting in Peets in Los Altos where I have a 54,000,000 bps wireless connection, not to some local BBS, but to this much larger, almost unimaginably (at least it would have been to me in 1980!) complex structure, the internet. In 1995, the little point and shoot camera I own…

Meanwhile, the xerox lisa had a DPI of 90, while a regular macbook has a DPI of 110. http://www.mprove.de/diplom/text/3.1.8_lisa.html http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html

The Apple Lisa also had a keyboard with 77 keys while a regular MacBook keyboard has 78 keys.

Going full circle, though, the iPhone 4 has 2.3 times as many pixels as the Apple Lisa, has a full color screen, you can fit it in a pocket, and you don't have to hunt for a wall outlet when you want to use it.

Re: Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

#40

Post by nooneelse »

gojomo wrote: post #31
masklinn wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This display is going to be huge news once it hits the iPad and MacBook Pros. Which is probably never. Those don't even reach the pixel density of the 2G/3G/3GS. 326ppi? That's already going to be pretty tall order on a 10" screen (the iPad currently stands at 132 ppi, assuming the form factor doesn't change we're talking about increasing the resolution by a factor of 2.5, pumping the resolution to an insane 2560x1…

Never is a mighty long time! Both handhelds and desktops have been increasing in resolution, and decreasing in cost, for years. There's no reason for that trend to stop until all displays reach 'retinal indifference' at their usual viewing distance. I would not be surprised to see 4000x3000 LCDs in laptops in the next decade.

You wouldn't need anything like 4000x3000 for 'retinal indifference' using the article's number of 287ppi@12" use distance as a basis for that threshold. 4000x3000 pixels, assuming a 22" screen is about 227ppi. The threshold in the article, translated to a typical working distance for a laptop of 22" is about 156ppi. So a 22" diagonal screen (same aspect ratio as your 4kx3k) would only need 1850 pixels on the short side to hit the 'retinal indifference' number.

Oh, and some other smartphones crossed into retinal indifference at their typical use distance sometime late last year.

Post reply on HN